HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings - CorrespondenceReceived after Agenda Printed
July 9, 2024
Item No. 13
Public Comment — Newport Beach City Council Meeting - 04/23/2024,
Agenda Item #14, "...Revising Certain Fees Within the Schedule of
Rents, Fines and Fees...":
Mayor and Council,
As related to the City's "ATTACHMENT A", under "BEFORE AND AFTER
ILLUSTRATION - HARBOR DEPARTMENT SERVICE FEES", line item 17 c), "Guest
Moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night", please refer to the excerpt page,
attached hereto.
The "Proposed" and current "Fee" of $1.42 per LF Per Night, applied to one of the
most of common mooring lengths in Newport Harbor, a 40-footer, pencils out to $56.80
a night, which would equate to $1,727 per month. This is only about $300 less per
month, than rates for a well-appointed slip at the City's Balboa Yacht Basin Marina.
The setting of such an extraordinarily high offshore mooring guest rate, dissuades
boaters. This, in conjunction with the City prohibiting mooring permitees from subletting
their own permitted moorings, are primary contributors to the fact that approximately
100 moorings here, sit unoccupied on any given day (Note that the City does allow
pier permittees to rent out their docks). The level of mooring vacancy, is more a
product of a managerial approach of over -pricing, and restricting availability, than it is a
scarcity of supply. Inaccurate data, and artificially inflated rent/fee prices result.
Pricing under The City's new "Mooring License Program", likewise suffers from an
artificially high demand. Under the program, a great number of applicants, sought a
very limited number of moorings. Near 20 applicants each, for a single 30', and single
40' mooring. Logically, those interested in a mooring, would rather obtain a License at
a lower fee cost, than rent as a "Guest", for a much higher fee cost. Many people
seeking something in very limited supply, creates inflationary pressure. Here again, the
City has played a part in creating limited supply, with the pricing and restrictions it
applies to the 100 or so vacant moorings.
Moreover, it makes little sense for the City to charge less in fees for Mooring
Licenses, where the tackle/hardware is maintained at public expense, and charge
much more in fees for "Guest" use of a Permit holder's vacant mooring, where the City
does not incur the expense of maintenance.
And important to note, is that reference to CPI based adjustments for Line Items 17
and (k "Note [b]" for onshore and offshore mooring Fees in the schedule before you
tonight, would instead be swapped out under Harbor Commission recommendation, for
increases based upon a higher than realistic comparison percentage of well-
appointed Marina slips to moorings. A scenario of much higher fees going forward is
the likely result, especially considering City plans to rebuild Balboa Yacht Basin.
(Please see the attached "Mooring Rental Rates Phased -in", and Documents showing
3 years of price increases at the City's Balboa Yacht Basin Marina)
Dispensing with the use of customary, and broadly accepted and applied CPI
adjustments, and/or established, and regularly reviewed State Benchmarks, will lead
to substantial Fee increases. The transformation of bay/ocean access from a diverse
group, of lesser means, to a more exclusive and affluent group, is in actuality, a
Phasing -out of the former. Claiming to spread the Phase -out over "almost 6 years",
does little to quell the broken hearts, and stolen dreams of the boaters and their
families who will be detrimentally affected. The City should neither endorse, or
condone excluding them.
Adam Leverenz
adleverQhotmail.com
et al.
Additional City Fee Study Concerns:
1) Being that Mooring license application, and Mooring license waitlist fees are within the study,
fees for those actual mooring lengths to be licensed, should be as well:
- Fees as of March 1- 2024 are in dhe talale beloAr Fees are adjusied annually on July 1 and are indexed to similar-sizad slips
in th& Balboa Yacht Basin
Mooring
PerTnittee
Max Length
Type
I
License fee/LF
Monthly
License Fee
A,D72
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
30
Offshore Mooring
S 13.00
$ 390.00
A-094
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
95
Offshore Mooring
S 22.00
$ 2,090.00
C-0-12
OTY OF NtWPORI BEACH
51)
Offshore Mooring
17-so
$ S)rs.ou
C-034
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
50
offshore Mooring
17.50
$ 075.00
C-036
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60
Offshore Mooring
2000
$ 1,200.00
C-042
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
40
Offshore Mooring
15.()0
600.00
F414
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60
Offshore Mooring
20.00
1,200.OD
H-031
CATY OF NEWPORT BEACH
50
Offshore Mooring
17-50
875.00
H-091
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60
Offshore Mooring
5 20.DO
$ 1,200.OD
K107
OTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60
Offshore Mwing
$ 20-00
$ 1,200.00
J-02 11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60
Offshore Mooving
S 20.Do
$ 1,200.00
N-062A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
18
Onshore Mooring
S 9.0io
162.00
S-01S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
18
Onshore Moor! ng
9.00
$ 162.00
S465
OTY OF KitwPOAT BEACH
18
Onshore Mooring
g-00
162.00
5-135B
C ITY OF NEWPOftT BEACH
18
Onshore Mooring
9.DU
162.00
W-017 -CITY
OF NEWPORT REACH
in
Onshore Moor�ng
9m
162,00
2) Being that the Mooring Transfer fee, based upon 75% of annual rent, currently appears the largest
mooring related fee, and that it will increase exponentially under the Harbor Commission's April 10,
2024 rent increase recommendation, that fee must be part of the study now. (The Transfer Fee of
$1,181.40 1 paid in October 2023, will increase to $4,327.20, best case scenario, after phase -in)
3) It would be helpful to review Pier Permit Fees at the same time as Mooring Permit Fees, so that
the disparity of the affluent paying near to State Benchmark Rates, while the less affluent pay
multitudes more, and over a greater calculated square footage, can be addressed in tandem.
Document form Page 14-7 of Attachment A, City Council Meeting 4/23/2024 Agenda item 14 (Revising City Fees
City of Newport Beach
BEFORE AND AFTER ILLUSTRATION - HARBOR DEPARTMENT SERVICES FEES
17 Mooring/ Slip Rental /Storage
a) Dinghy Storage - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
b) Guest Moorings - Onshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
c) Guest moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night SubLet of moorings
cl) Impound - Nightly Storage Fee - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
e) Large Vessel (8G+ LF) Offshore Guest Mooring - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
0 Large Vessel Guest Anchorage Rate - Non City Tackle - no boat
g) Marina Park Boat Slips (40' Slip) - Per Night
h) Marina Park Boat Slips (55'Slip) - Per Night
i) Marina Park Boat Slips (Overhang Charge) - Per Foot/Per Night
j) Moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Year
k) Moorings - Onshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Year
1) Multi -hull Vessel - 2 hulls - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
m) Multi -hull Vessel - 3 hulls - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
$0.69
$0.69
$0.70
$0.70
2%
2%
$0.01
$0.01
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1.39
$1.42
2%
$o.o340 ft=$1,727n/a
Per Month
n/a
Same as Guest
Same as Guest
2%
$0.00
n/a
n/a
$1.72
$1.75
2%
$0.03
n/a
n/a
$0.52
$0.53
2%
$0.01
n/a
n/a
$88.0
$90
2%
$2
n/a
n/a
$121.00
$123
2%
$2
n/a
n/a
$2.22
$2.26
2%
$0.04
n/a
n/a
$39.38
$40.17
2%
$0.79
n/a
n/a
$19.68
$20.07
2%
$0.39
n/a
n/a
$1.66
$1.69
2%
$0.03
n/a
n/a
$1.94
$1.98
2%
$0.04
n/a
n/a
[b]
[b]
1 . The city wins when it sub Lets (rents out) a permitted mooring because the underlying permit hoLder pays for the am enity/tackle. It costs the city nothing. AlLrevenues go to the city.
2. The existing sublet rate is too high as evidenced by the number of vacant moorings through the harbor (roughly 100 each day). The sub Let rate for a 40ft boat is $1,727 per month.
3. The city should lower the sub Let rate unti Ito make these subLet (guest moorings) more afford a bLe and avaiLabLe to the average boater.
4. Many sublet moorings are avaiLable every summer when the mooring holder sets out for Long voyages. They are also avai [a btein the winter when boats are at shipyards foroverhauL.
5. The city is creating a false scarcity of moorings in Newport Harbor by setting these sublet rates way too high.
6. It is concern ingth at the H a rborCommission has used interest levels in the recentLyroLled out mooring license program (16 moorings) as justification to raise perm it rates when,
in fact, rough Ly 100 moorings are avaiLabLe but unrented each day due to the high sub Let rate set by the city.
Notes:
No increase in rates until January 1, 2025.
Six Proportionate increases over almost 6 years.
BYB (Balboa Yacht Basin) rates are based on the City
adopted Marina Index of 5 marinas in Newport
Harbor per the Netzer appraisal.
January 1, 2025 and July 1, 2025 increases are about
one -tenth the difference between current rates and
the adjusted FMV.
Each fiscal year beginning July 1, the annual
adjustment is about one -fifth the difference between
current rates and the adiuqted FMV.
In addition to the rate increases shown in this spreadsheet,
Each year the increase will be adjusted based on 24%
of the annual adjustment percentage per the City
Marina Index for slip rentals.
In otherwords, what you see on this matrix is n twhatyouget.
The rate increases will exponentially compounded by the annual
rate increases of the Balboa Yacht Basin (BYB) slip fees, which
irrationally serve as the index for the unrelated "water only"
mooring permit fees. Over the last few years, slips rates at BYB
have gone up ;t;l 5% at the BYB. With this in mind, we have
applied 15% slip increases on the 40ft column to illustrate what
the mooring rate increases may really Look like under this plan.
Rate Comparisons
Increase Is Phased -in Through HE 2030
Price Per Linear Foot Per Month
Designated
Mooring
Lengths
BYBAverage
Slip Rental Rate
S/LF
Current
Mooring Rateg
SILF
Effective
Jan 1, 2025
Effective
July 1, 2025
Effective
July 1, 2026
Effective
July 1, 2027
Effective
July 2, 2029
Effective
July 1, 2029
LOA Feet
per LF
$ per LF
FYIE 2025
FYE 2026
FYE 2027
FYE 2028
FYE 2029
FYIE 2030
18
32.23
1,67
2.27
2.88
4.08
5.29
6.50
7.71
25
32.38
3.34
3.74
4.19
5.08
5.98
6.87
7.77
30
39.60
3.34
3.91
4.53
5.78
7.02
8.26
9.50
35
42.59
3.34
3.98
4.68
6.06
7.45
8.84
10.22
40
50.09
3.34
4.16
5.04
6.78
8.53
10,28
12.02
45
51.27
3.34
4.19
5.09
6.90
8.70
10.50
12.30
so
60.59
334
4.42
5.54
7.79
10.04
12.29
14.54
60
70.65
3.34
4.66
6.02
8.76
11.49
14.22
16.96
1 70
74.08,
3,341
4.74
6.19
9.09
11.98
14.88
17.78
Designated
Mooring
Lengths/Feet
BYBAverage
sl I p Rental Rate
$/Month
Current
Mooring Rates
$/Month
Price
Per Mooring
LOA Per Month
Jan 1, 2025
FYE 2025
J* 1, 2025
FYE 2026
July 1, 2026
FYE 2027
July 1, 2027
FYE 2028
July 1, 2028
FYE 2029
July 1, 2029
FYE 2030
18
580,14
30,06
40,93
51.79
73.52
95.25
116.98
138.72
25
809.50
83.50
93.46
104.75
127.00
149.50
171.75
194.25
30
1,188.00
100,20
117.34
135.90
173.40
210.60
247.80
285.00
35
1,490.65
11630
139.41
163.80
212.10
260,75
309.40
357.70
40
2,003.60
133.60
166.52
201.60
271.20
341.20
411.20
-48049�-
45
2,307.15
150.30
188.62
229.05
310.50
391.50
472.50
553.50
so
3,029.501
16T00
22036
277.00
399.50
502.00
614.50
727,00
60
4,239.001
200.40
279.41
361.20
525.60
689.40
853.20
1,017.60
70
5,185.831
233.80
331.72
433.30
636.30
838.60
1,041.60
1,244.60
$967.18
� e��Po
>
t n
U X
May 24, 2023
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
i wo w- u.abw Boulevard
Newpon Ek-ich. Calefosma 92663
949-270-SIS9 I VHF Channel 19
newponharboe.otg
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6. 2010), and per your slip/garagetapartment
rental agreement which states that 60 day's notice must be given for any r ate adjustment, we are writing
to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on . August 1, 20
Per the Resolution, the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the
Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport
Harbor. In addition. the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price
Index (All Urban Consumers — Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).
Slip Length
2023-2024 Slip Rate
(per foot, per ffwnth)
20'Slip
$32.23
25'Slip
$32.38
31' Slip
$37.29
32'Slip
$40.49
34'Slip
$41.02
35'Slip
$42.59
37'Slip
$44.34
40'Slip
$50.09
45'Slip
$51-27
50'Slip
$60.59
60' Slip
$70.65
75'Slip
$80.95
The rate charged shall be the greater of the slip or the boat. ft the boat is longer than the slip it is in, the
charge shall be based on the slip prke plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.
Garages S444.81 per month
Apartments $3,353.81 per month
If you have any questions, please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159,
Thank you,
City of Newport Beach — Harbor Department
harbormaster(a)newr>ortt>eachca._qov
949-270-8159
q�� W P(:) 0�'
U
C,
" I -
May 17, 2022
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6. 2010). and per your slip/garage/apartment
rental agreement which states that 60 days'notice must be given for any rate adjustment, we are writing
to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on August 1, 2022.
Per the Resolution. the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the
Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport
Harbor. In addition, the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price
Index (All Urban Consumers - Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).
Slip Lenath
2022-2023 Slip Rate
(per fbot, per month)
20' Slip
$30.59
25' Slip
31' Slip
$32-55
$35.79
32' SI!E
$37.01
34' Slip
35' Slip
$38.73
$40.30
37' Slip
$41.67
40' Slip
45' Slip
$43-96
$47-52
50' Slip
$55.70
60'Slip
75' Slip
$65-20
$76.97
The rate charged shall be the greater of the slip or the boat. If the boat is longer than the slip it is in, the
charge shall be based on the slip price plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.
Garages $429.15 per month
Apartments $3,235.71 per month
If you have any questions. please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159.
Thank you,
City of Newport Beach - Harbor OppartmPrit
harbormaster@newportbeachca.gov
949-270-8159
,V;30RT 8EACH
lv� Ve Sa [boa Sousevard
Npwvori Oo�c". Cal Jo —a 92663
VHF Onannel 19
-2woofz"rborors
April 27, 2021
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6, 2010), and per your slip/garage/apartment
rental agreement which states that 60 days' notice must be given for any rate adjustment, we are writing
to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on July 1. 2021, and will continue
to do so annually on the first of July.
Per the Resolution, the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the
Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport
Harbor. In addition, the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price
Index (All Urban Consumers — Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).
Slip Length 2021-2022 Slip Rate
(per fo
p!,permonth)
20' Slip $27.32
25' Slip
$28.61
31'Slip
$29-90
32' Slip
$31.30
34' Slip
$34.14
35'Slip
$34.14
37' Slip
$34.24
40'Slip
$37.75
45' Slip
$42.02
50'Slip
$46.83
60' Slip
$53.89
$59,55--
75'Sli
The rate charged shall be the greater between the slip or the boat If the boat is longer than the slip, the
charge shag be based on the slip price, plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.
Garages $395-53 per month
Apartments $2.982.22 per month
If you have any question. please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159.
Thank you,
City of Newport Beach - Harbor Department
harbormaster@newportbeachca go�o
949-270-8159
Public Comment - Harbor Commission Special Meeting - 02/01/2024
Dear Harbor Commissioners; Mayor; and City Council,
To address in 3-minute segments of public comment at meetings, all pertinent issues
related to the 50 some odd pages of the Dec. 26, 2023 Netzer Appraisal Report, as
well as the numerous other materials included with the 02-01-2024 Special Meeting
agenda, would be impossible. Unfortunately, as a result, those many pages
necessitate pages of response, so here goes.
First off, the "Harbor Commission Staff Report" for the February 1, 2024 Special
Meeting, States:
"The rent for moorings was last adjusted in 2016 pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 2016-17, based on an appraisal of the offshore moorings."
This seems disingenuous. I've only been an offshore mooring permit holder for a few
months, but in that time, the monthly rate I pay The City has gone up. My prior
understanding from City sources, was that this generally occurs about once a year,
and is based on The Consumer Price Index. I dispute Staff's apparent contention, that
these CPI adjustments, are not adjustments, and that none have occurred since 2016.
Selected Observations on The APPRAISAL REPORT:
The 12/26/2023 Netzer Appraisal Report, uses terms like "Assumptions"; "assuming";
"limiting conditions"; "Most probable price"; "Hypothetical sites"; "Somewhat imperfect";
etc. It states that its' conclusions are merely quote — unquote "opinion".
The preparer notes to have "personally conducted an inspection of a
representative sampling of the 'offshore' moorings..."
I have however, found no reference to indicate which specific offshore moorings were
inspected, or how many of these unspecified moorings, out of the approximate 731,
were used in forming Netzer's "opinion"?
Was The Harbor Department involved? Did they provide transport or commentary for
these mooring inspections? Either could create bias, as the Harbor Department would
likely benefit from an increase of about 300 to 500% in monthly rents.
1
The Appraisal Report, in using generally vague and unspecified moorings for
comparison, makes for suspect results and conclusions. Permittees are placed at a
disadvantage, by having this information withheld.
The Netzer Report, on page 10, says that there are 10 offshore mooring locations
throughout the harbor, plus 2 proximate to yacht clubs. That makes 12. The City
provided list though, also on page 10, and the map on page 11, do not show 12, unless
we're counting the anchorage, and/or the Harbor Patrol location. I find inconsistency
within the report, yery concerning.
Netzer, on Pg. 15, says that "... there is no active real estate market for the sale of
submerged tidelands... "
I will point out, that there is a market for Mooring Permits. Data reflecting this fact, is
included within the Report, and is available on The City's website. I contend that
Mooring Permit Transfers, offer a far more appropriate, accurate, and comparable data
set for calculating valuations for the submerged State lands those permits grant use of.
Mooring values have historically been based on lineal foot measurements. Netzer
uses both square footage, and frontage footage figures from dry land sales for
valuation comparisons to submerged land. The Appraisal Report notes that 40' is the
most common size of offshore mooring. It assumes that a boat on a 40' mooring, is 40'
x 14'. There are very few boats with a rectangular footprint. MOST boats taper down
from their "beam" (aka maximum width), to bow and stern. This makes the square
footage comparisons in The Appraisal Report generally inflated.
Personally, I paid $30,000 for a 40' Offshore Mooring Permit several months back.
Netzer speculates that associated vessels are drifting over an area of 1,200 Square
Feet. This would mean, that I acquired the right to lease that amount of submerged
State land, for $25 per sq. ft. ($30,000 / 1,200 sq. ft. = $25 per)
Also important to note, is that most of that supposed 1,200 sq. ft., is not precluded
from use by other members of the public. Smaller craft, including Dinghy's; Tenders;
Sabots; Paddle Boards; Stand-up Paddle Boards; Kayaks; Float Tubes; Etc., Etc.,
regularly transition through the space, and/or fish/swim/take photos/linger/socialize
/listen to music/etc.
And please consider that the Report uses square footage value estimations of survey
defined land, and permanent improvements there on, and applies that formula to the
total supposed footprint a boat may drift over when moored over submerged land.
And if The City is to now contend that lineal feet, is a dimensional measurement, as
the Report seems to imply, and if my 40' permitted mooring were truly the 20' by 60'
Netzer concludes, by saying that there's about 10' of distance between vessels and
their mooring balls, that would equate to 160 total feet measured all the way around
(20' + 20' + 60' + 60' = 160'). In this scenario, the $30k I paid, works out to $1,875 per
lineal, or frontage foot (Four sides of the 20' x 60' hypothetical, rectangular dimension
Netzer uses). Comparable dry land sales data cited, has much higher valuations,
ranging from about $105,000, to over $280,000 per lineal, or frontage foot.
If dry land with permanent attachments to the land, were even trully comparable in
value to heavily regulated submerged land, which is precluded from permanent
attachments, $25 per sq. ft., and $1,875 per lineal foot, are actual, recent valuations
to "own" "real property", in the form of an offshore mooring permit.
Page 15 of the Report, includes a formula for determining "Fair Market Rent". It relies
on "Market Value of Upland Property (vacant land)". Again, considering the ample data
for the sale/transfer of mooring permits available, and considering that mooring permits
sel I/transfer/g rant the use of property that is most comparable that type of property
itself, the methodology of using dissimilar dry land sales for comparison, is
unnecessary and unfair, and leads to "opinion", both flawed and inaccurate.
And developed properties onshore around here, have over time, appreciated
substantially in value. In my period of interest, Mooring Permit values have not
undergone increases of value at similar percentages. Also, boats generally depreciate
in value, so again the comparison to dry places and permanent attachments is off. And
regardless, what the dry land, and marina slips have as far as amen ities/services/
access, makes square, and/or lineal footage valuation comparisons to submerged
lands, problematic at best.
The Report, on page 32, talks about a private underground market for mooring rentals,
and references some advertised prices. In my experience, advertised prices, are
usually not actual prices. If you don't believe me, I'll advertise here, a $20,000, very
low value boat I'd sell you for that advertised price. Netzer using advertising as a data
point, is inappropriate.
A Personal Historical Perspective:
I've been paying pretty close attention to mooring prices and transfers for 15+ years.
When my permit was transferred to me on October 31, 2023, 1 feel that I should have
been informed by The Harbor Department, that substantial monthly rent increases
were in the offing. When was the "new appraisal report for offshore mooring rental
rates" initiated? Clearly, it was some time prior to Dec. 26, 2023. Why weren't those
acquiring permits informed? I reasonably expected, that historical trends over a decade
and a half, would continue.
3
Recent purchasers of permits would be particularly disadvantaged, were The City to
increase monthly rents by the excessive amounts being proposed. I paid a Transfer
Fee of $1,181.40 to have The Harbor Department assist with filling out 4 pgs. of
paperwork (Code defined 75% of Annual Mooring Rent). One transfer per year is the
limit, so if I don't want to, or am unable to pay in the vicinity of 300-500% more in
monthly rent, I'm stuck. And when the Code would allow me to transfer the permit, the
associated fee to The City, would then range from $4,327 to $5,760. This is onerous,
creates harm, and will likely reduce the value and transferability of permits.
There are parties, who cannot reasonably expect to be able to keep their permits
under such extreme rent increases. Some City actions, have appeared to evidence a
desire to gain more control over more permits. This could be interpreted as a means to
obtain those permits through revocation/confiscation. Should this come to pass,
arguments could be made, that wrongful takings have occurred. I believe The City
currently holds about 16 Mooring Permits. If it wants more permits, and more price
control for individual moorings, it should be purchasing permits as they become
available on the market.
Additional Impacts/Concerns re: Live- Aboards:
The Harbor Dept. has informed me that there are currently about 51 live aboard
permits. As I understand it, more than one person could live -aboard under each permit.
Netzer uses "Residential" properties for comparison to moorings. While I don't agree
with the idea that living on a boat, and living in a house, apartment, or what not, are
closely comparable, I suppose that The City could claim that out of 731 offshore
moorings, about 7% of them might be compared to residential property ....... IF the
residences on dry land, aren't permanently attached to that land (RV; Trailer Home;
Manufactured Home; Tiny Home; ADU; Etc.)
And should the proposed 300-500% monthly rent increases be approved by Mayor
and Council, live-aboards would be severely affected. Some are at risk of becoming
homeless. I strongly object to The City taking away some of the very last affordable
means of keeping a roof over one's head here. Information for the January 23, 2024
City Council Meeting, indicated that nearly a million dollars had been spent over the
previous 6 months for Homeless Support Services. The figures exclude salary and
benefit amounts for two staff members, so well over a million dollars in six months was
likely spent. A number of shelter beds are contracted in Costa Mesa, for $155 per day.
At what level would an increase in mooring rent revenues, be reduced by increased
expenses? $155 a day, x _ potentially new homeless individuals, would seem to
add up pretty quickly.
51
Crime Comparison:
While using the dinghy docks to access my mooring, I've experienced theft 3 times,
and attempted theft once. This, in a span of about 3 months of trips down here. A NPB
PID Officer recently told me that theft will never stop. A mooring in the same row as me,
had a dinghy stolen. Thankfully, it was later recovered. A mooring one row west, had
their dinghy stolen, and not recovered. I've been told of other similar instances. BYB
Staff have informed me that "We do not see a lot of crime or theft at Balboa Yacht
Basin", so in this regard too, moorings do not compare to BYB at a value of 24% -
34%.
City as Insureds:
And please keep in mind, that The City benefits by mandating Offshore Mooring
Permitees cover City Elected Officials and Personnel on their vessel insurance
policies. The City gets millions of dollars of insurance coverage for free. If Offshore
Mooring Permittees aren't seen as providing some value to The City associated with
that, warrantying consideration towards monthly rent amounts, drop the requirement.
Conclusion:
In closing, during my 20+ years of owning 27'— 38' vessels, I've spent time at anchor,
in marina slips, at various docks, and on moorings. Getting in and out of the H Field
can be quite challenging. More challenging than ANY slip or dock I've used.
I hope that each person comparing moorings to slips, is completely familiar with the
many, substantial differences. My personal experience has been, that well-appointed,
and accessible marina slips, are far, far more valuable. But, if The City wishes to push
through the misguided idea that moorings hold 24%-34% of the value of City owned
slips here, efforts to mitigate should be made. We can address those in future
proceedings.
Thank you,
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
January 31, 2024
Newport Beach City Council Meeting 05/14/2024 — Public Comment
Re: Yacht Club Lease Rate Inquiries:
Mayor and Council,
It's said that The Harbormaster indicated at a Yacht Club function, that they would not be
subject to the 300, to over 500% increase in mooring fees under the Harbor Commission
Recommendation of 04/10/2024. Verification of Yacht Clubs being exempted, or otherwise
insulated from the fee increases has been sought a number of times. Yesterday, Harbor
Commission Chair Sculley e-mailed me, saying:
"We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure
that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission isfor mooring permittees as they are defined
in Title] 7 of the Municipal Code"
The apparent reluctance of City personnel to respond with a simple "yes" or "no", is throwing
up all kids of red flags for me. I suspect that each of you is aware, of The State Lands, and
California Coastal Commission's high level of concern about the existing rate disparity in
Newport Harbor, wherein mooring permit holders currently pay multiple times more in
rents/fees, yet The Harbor Commission suggests increasing the divide even further, while
apparently exempting Yacht Clubs, when some on the Commission are equity members in
the Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits there.
Additionally, some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the
recommendation, are pier permit holders, who pay much lower rates than mooring permitees.
These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been previously
disclosed.
After a period of intimate involvement, The Harbormaster eventually recused himself, and
has said "discussions may affect mefinancially". It's clear to me, that a number of other
involved parties suffer from similar conflict, and should not have participated in the process.
Recusal as an afterthought, does not correct prior, flawed process.
As you go into Closed Session to discuss "ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT
EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", I hope that you can see beyond the cherry picking of facts,
and obfuscation that's preceded the Harbor Commission's recommendation.
Please recognize the wrongful conduct that has brought us to this point, and consider how
much additional inconvenience and expense you may subject civil servants, citizens, and
taxpayers to, in trying to defend what has transpired to date.
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
City Council Meeting, June 11, 2024
Public Comment Re:
Are Yacht Clubs; Lido Isle Community
Association; or others,
Exempted or otherwise
Insulated/Immune from Mooring
fee/rent increases,
under pending Harbor Commission
Recommendation:
(14 pgs. In Reverse Chronological Order)
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: rgrant@newportbeachca.gov <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilwoman Grant,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
I hope that you have a wonderful trip to Japan. Just prior the last regular Council Meeting, I'd
been enjoying the Sister City sculpture.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov <IkIeirnan@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilwoman Kleiman
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <adlever@hotrnaiI.corn>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: bavery@newportbeachca.gov <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Avery,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.corn>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: nblom@newportbeachca.gov <nblom@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Blom,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.corn>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Stapleton,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.corn>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:31 PM
To: eweigand@newportbeachca.gov <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Weigand,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
I hope that you enjoy your upcoming trip to Japan. Just prior the 05/28/2024 Meeting, I'd been
admiring the related sculpture.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Inquiry
Mayor O'Neill,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to
the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of
adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those
Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
City of Newport Beach
May 28, 2024
In response to Councilmember Weigand's concern for the impact of the project during the summer
months, Public Works Director Webb explained the approach to prioritize the Newport Elementary
School area and return in September for the remaining areas.
Motion by Councilmember Weigand, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, to a) find this
project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15301(c), Class 1 (maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of
use) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment; b) approve the project plans and specifications; c) approve Budget Amendment
No. 24-078 appropriating $42,000 in new revenue and expenditures from Orange County Sanitation
District to Account No. 13501-980000-22R11; d) award Contract No. 8833-2 to R.J. Noble Company
for the total bid price of $5,119,060 for the Balboa Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and 32nd Street
Pavement Rehabilitation project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract;
and e) establish a contingency of $512,000 (approximately 10% of total bid) to cover the cost of
unforeseen work not included in the original contract.
Jim Mosher suggested informing the public of the types of pedestrian safety improvements being
proposed since it might be more applicable along Balboa Bdklevard in the future.
Public Works Director Webb relayed the safety enh cements Atat are being planned.
The motion carried unanimously. k
XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
George Hylkema discussed tideland fees in the Harbor and provided a handout.
Adam Leverenz noted he has not received a response to his inquiiy on whether yacht clubs will be
exempted from mooring holding fee increases or to see the Harbor Commission's recommendation they
will be making to Council, recited four reliable sources the City could use to evaluate mooring rates, and
asked that Council beco �i informed about permit harbor rates.
Jim Mosher announced the Coffee with the Mayor event on May 31, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
and inquired about the address.
Mayor O'Neill stated that the Coffee with the Mayor event will take place at the Starbucks at 377 East
Coast Highway.
XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING
17. Resolution No. 2024-32: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County Airport Land Use
Commission's Determination of Inconsistency for the City's Housing Element
Implementation Program Amendments (PA2022-0245)
Assistant City Manager Jurjis introduced Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo,
provided background, and indicated that, if Council approves the resolution, a notice will be sent to
the Airport Land Use Commission and staff will return to the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting
to hold a a public hearing and review the housing implementation documents.
Mayor O'Neill recognized and appreciated the work on this matter by staff and noted shared
concerns by the public and Council about the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process.
In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that
Huntington Beach was unsuccessful in challenging the State on the RHNA process. Councilmember
Grant added that other cities have also been unsuccessful.
Mayor ONeill opened the public hearing.
Volume 66 - Page 107
City of Newport Beach
May 14, 2024
111. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Adam Leverenz took issue that yacht clubs are being exempt from the mooring fee increases
recommended by the Harbor Commission, noted participants in the process who have financial
interests, and asked Council to consider during the Closed Session the wrongful conduct leading up to
this point and the inconvenience, time, and expense to defend the position.
Bill Powers provided a handout and addressed the formula for the phasing and the 24% indexing to the
Balboa Yacht Basin, and wondered if a working committee would be helpful to form.
Ann Stenton, President of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA), expressed that she felt there was a
lack of direct and real dialogue with the Harbor Commission regarding the proposed mooring rate
increases and suggested there be a global rate study. She also proposed meeting with the City Manager
or Mayor to review concerns and develop a mutually beneficial solution.
IV. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPdSURE TO LITIGATION
(Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2) (e)(3)): 1 matter
On Aprill 22, 2024, Elise M. Kern with the law firm of Palmieri, 1knnessey & Leifer, LLP, confirmed
that Mr. Chris Benzen is inclined to pursue litigation against the-cid of Newport Beach if the City
Council increases the rent for moorings, as recommended by the HaFbor Commission. A copy of the
e-mail from Ms. Kern is on file with the City Clerk located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach, California 92660, and is available blic inspection pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957.5. AMW IL
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PRO
(Government Code § 54956.8): lAp
Property: A portion ofItTe0hphu-blic right- of-lWadi acent to 929
944 Via Lido Nord (423-281-10) (approximately 845 square feet).
.0
Zurich Circle (423-282-04) and
City Negotiators: Seimone Jurjis, As ant City Manager, and Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger,
Real Property Administrator.
I
Negotiating Parties: Palmer Luckey on behalf of the 929 Zurich Circle Trust and the 944 Via Lido
Nord Trust.
Under Negotiation: Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment.
V. RECESSED - 4:48 p.m.
VI. RECONVENED AT 6:01 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
VII. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Brad Avery,
Councilmember Noah Blom, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Erik Weigand
Excused: Councilmember Robyn Grant
VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Harp announced that no reportable actions were taken.
Ix. INVOCATION - Mayor O'Neill
X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Blom
Volume 66 - Page 91
Newport Beach City Council Meeting 05/14/2024 — Public Comment
Re: Yacht Club Lease Rate Inquiries:
Mayor and Council,
It's said that The Harbormaster indicated at a Yacht Club function, that they would not be
subject to the 300, to over 500% increase in mooring fees under the Harbor Commission
Recommendation of 04/10/2024. Verification of Yacht Clubs being exempted, or otherwise
insulated from the fee increases has been sought a number of times. Yesterday, Harbor
Commission Chair Sculley e-mailed me, saying:
"We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure
that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission isfor mooring permittees as they are defined
in Title] 7 of the Municipal Code"
The apparent reluctance of City personnel to respond with a simple "yes" or "no", is throwing
up all kids of red flags for me. I suspect that each of you is aware, of The State Lands, and
California Coastal Commission's high level of concern about the existing rate disparity in
Newport Harbor, wherein mooring permit holders currently pay multiple times more in
rents/fees, yet The Harbor Commission suggests increasing the divide even further, while
apparently exempting Yacht Clubs, when some on the Commission are equity members in
the Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits there.
Additionally, some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the
recommendation, are pier permit holders, who pay much lower rates than mooring permitees.
These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been previously
disclosed.
After a period of intimate involvement, The Harbormaster eventually recused himself, and
has said "discussions may affect mefinancially". It's clear to me, that a number of other
involved parties suffer from similar conflict, and should not have participated in the process.
Recusal as an afterthought, does not correct prior, flawed process.
As you go into Closed Session to discuss "ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT
EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", I hope that you can see beyond the cherry picking of facts,
and obfuscation that's preceded the Harbor Commission's recommendation.
Please recognize the wrongful conduct that has brought us to this point, and consider how
much additional inconvenience and expense you may subject civil servants, citizens, and
taxpayers to, in trying to defend what has transpired to date.
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: May 07, 2024 2:49 P M
To: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov
Subject: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day Mr. Blank,
I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to
fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under
Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear
answer has seemed elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotma il.com>; Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Mr. Leverenz:
As a mooring permittee, these discussions may affect me financially.
As you have likely observed, I am not participating in the proceedings and therefore do not have any information for
you. I am forwarding your question to Lauren Wood i ng-Whitlinger, the Real Property Administrator for the City.
You may also wish to address your question to the Harbor Commission Chair, Steve Scully, or the ad hoc committee
Chair, Ira Beer.
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 11:17 AM
To: Scully, Steve <sscully@newportbeachca.gov>; Beer, Ira <1 beer@ newportbeachca.gov>; Wooding, Lauren
<LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>;
ExecutiveStaff @Coastal <exec ut ivestaff @ coa sta 1. ca.gov>; Kate. H uckel bridge@ coastal. ca.gov
<Kate. H uckel bridge@ coasta I.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey. Palm@coastal.ca.gov>;
Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day,
Harbormaster Paul Blank has directed me to Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Steve Sculley; Vice -
Chair Ira Beer, and Real Property and Asset Management Program manager Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, in
relation to the following inquiry made to him:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to
fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under
Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear
answer has seemed elusive.
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz"
From: Scully, Steve <sscully@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:07 PM
To: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>; Beer, Ira <1 beer@ newportbeachca.gov>; Wooding, Lauren
<LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>;
ExecutiveStaff @Coastal <exec u tivestaff @ coa sta 1. ca.gov>; Kate. H uckel bridge@ coastal. ca.gov
<Kate. H uckel bridge@ coasta I.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey. Palm @coasta I.ca.gov>;
Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Mr. Leverenz - We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate
structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for mooring permittees as they are
defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Regards,
Steve Scully
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
sscully@newportbeachca.gov
909-322-2893
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:39 AM
To: sscully@newportbeachca.gov <sscully@newportbeachca.gov>; ibeer@newportbeachca.gov
< i beer@ newportbeach ca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>;
ExecutiveStaff @Coastal <exec ut ivestaff @ coa sta 1. ca. gov>; Kate. Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov
<Kate. H uckel bridge@ coasta I.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey. Palm@coastal.ca.gov>;
Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>; SouthCoast@coastaI.ca.gov
<South Coast@ coasta I.ca.gov>
Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Harbor Commission Chair Scully,
I had thought that:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to
fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under
Yacht Club stewardship?"
Was a simple "yes" or "no" question. If you feel you have "answered this question in multiple Harbor
Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for
mooring permittees as they are defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code", and multiple members of the public
have not been able to clecern a clear answer through The Harbor Commission's obfuscation, perhaps you
could show the candor to answer the simple question, with a simple yes or no. I think tacit obstruction is not
helpful.
Regards,
Adam Leverenz
From: Ad lever <ad lever@ hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeff rey.Palm@coastal.ca.gov>
Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>;
ExecutiveStaff @Coastal <exec ut ivestaff @ coa sta 1. ca.gov>; Kate. H uckel bridge@coasta Lca.gov
<Kate. H uckel bridge@ coasta I.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov
<Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>; SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov <SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day,
I had thought that with Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Scully's May 13, 2024 reply below, if I read
through the Newport Beach Harbor Code again, I would find the answer to my question:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to
feeslratesfor Mooring Permits, arefees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heldlmanaged under
Yacht Club stewardship?"
However, I do not see Chair Sculley's stated "mooring permittee " listed under "Definitions" in the Code. A
search indicates that the term "mooring permittee ", appears 48 times. None of those seem to define the term
though. "Mooring" and "Permittee" are defined separately:
"Title 17
Definitions:
7. Mooring. The term "mooring" shall mean a
device consisting of afloating buoy or other object
that is secured to the harbor bottom by an anchor system
for purposes of securing a vessel and includes
any apparatus used to secure a vessel in Newport
Harbor which is not carried aboard such vessel as
regular equipment when under way.
2. Permittee(s). The term '�permittee(s) "shall be
theperson or entity who holds a validly issuedpermit
under any provision of this title. Permittee(s)
shall also include licensee(s), except in cases where
such definition would conflict with another provision
of this title. FF
A clear and precise yes or no answer, on whether or not the recommended rate increases apply to moorings
held by Yacht clubs; Lido Island Association; et al., is very important. There have been indications that they are
exempt, or otherwise insulated/immune. I would hope that the City can be compelled to provide a clear
answer. Apparently, I'm not very compelling in this regard. I hope that recipients of this e-mail may be more
so, and will elicit clarity.
Thank you so much,
Adam Leverenz
Yacht Club Mooring Presentation
April 8th, 2024 6:00 PM
Presentation
1. Discrimination
2. Faulty Appraisal
3.Conflict of Interest Concerns
$1,600.00
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
$ 1, 000. 00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00
$285
�357
Monthly Rates - Exiist�ng vs HC Recommendation
E Current E Recommendation
M.
$553
$727
$1,017
$194
$200.00 01
25 30 35 40 45 50 60
Mooring Length
$1,244
70
$1,422
$1,333
$1,60D
$L689
75
so
90
95
2
Discrimination
l.Political
2.USE
3.Economic
Political Discrimination
A majority of mooring permits are
held by residents that cannot vote
in Newport Beach
City Council Districts
pom
City ot Newport Beoch
,
FffeCi Y; April 2 1, 2o2 2
C.Y f � 1—h
G15 DlMn—
Ad—f.d b, rdl—_ 4� 2022-7
ZV2/2M4
58%
Compared to docks, a majority in the green box
Mooring Permit Holder City of Residence
.* NEWPORT BEACH iwd' OTHER OTY
42%
M
Use Discrimination
The California State Lands Act
CHAPTER 74
An act relating to tide and submerged lands in the City of Newport
Beach, and in this connection repealing Chapter 494 of the Statutes
of 1919, Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927, Chapter 142 of the Statutes
of 192% Chapter ILE.74 of the Statutes of 1929, Chapter 813 of the
Statutes of 1929, ,md Chapter 200 of the Statutes of 1931, and
declaring the urge-acy thereof, to take effect ixnmediately.
[Approved by Governor Apri) 6,1978. Filed with
Secretary of State April 7, 1978.1
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation,, and control of the
lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the
c ity or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or
I
charges for any use or service in connection therewith.
It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls,, or for any use.. 11
Why are we only looking at the Moorings? Why aren't they appraising all of the uses at
the same time? This is "use" discrimination.
Why didn't the appraisal look at single point moorings? Why did they not look at the
docks? Are the BYC and Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs, as organizations who pay the city
directly for mooring rents, included in this rate increase? Why didn't the appraisal
include rents charged at the Newport Aquatic Center?
It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls, or for any use0. 11
Dock
-25' Power Boat + -19' Duffy
Residential Pier Permits (
-i�7 Residential Pier Perinit
Address: 619 36TH ST
Permit Area Total Square Footage: 190
Pier is not shared by more than one fesident.
&n total square footag-e.
Permit Fee
CuTrent Year. $143.31
Pier Permit Exhibit
-$12.00 / Month
Mooring
-34' Sail boat
$138.00 / Month
Image sources: https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/NewportHTML5Viewer/?viewer=pierpermitsinfo
-5
I
C3
CO
3:
-10
It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls, or for any use0. 11
WAMENOWO
Dock
$12/month
4
4-f
OL
Mooring
$138/month
1.F
(double -point)
Image sources: https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/glossary
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/mooring-permittees
S6w
s5w
S4W
S300
S200
S100
S-
Economic Discrimination
$12
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Monthly Race
Dock v Mooring
$138
Existing 40'
Mooring
$481
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
4
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$144
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Annual
Dock v Mooring
$11656
Existing 40'
Mooring
$51770
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
10
$70,GW
$60,000
S50,000
W,000
S30,000
S20,000
S10,000
$17440
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Ten Years
Dock v Mooring
$167560
Existing 40'
Mooring
$57.f696
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
11
S35D,DW
S30D,DW
S250,000
S200,000
S150,000
S100,000
$50,M@
$7P200
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Fifty Years
Dock v Mooring
$82Y800
Existing 40'
Mooring
$288P480
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
12
What would be fair?
Let's just apply the current dock system (resolution 2015-10) to moorings. Eliminate the It use" discrimination
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADJUSTING THE
RENTAL CALCULATION AND APPROVING A REVISED
MODEL PERMIT TEMPLATE FOR RESIDENTIAL PIERS
LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the City Council considered, at its regularly
scheduled study session, the current status of the City's tidelands regulations and rents
for moofings, commercial piers and residential piers and directed staff to bring back
certain amendments contained in this resolution to improve the tidelands rent process;
AYES: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Petros, Council MembeF Muldoon,
Mayor Pro Tern Dixon
NAYS: Council Member Curry
RECUSED: Council Member Duffield, Mayor Selich
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this I 1�h day of February, 2015.
13
January 27, 2015
Agenda Item No. SS3
0
Harbor Fees.
Moorings, Commercial iers,
0
Residential Piers
14
Residential Pier Fees
Pre-2013
Residential Piers were charged a flat rate ($100) regardless of size.
Rertals prohibited
2013 Forward
Residential Pier Permittees charged proportionate to dock size.
Rentals allowed. If a person rents out his/her dock, they pay the Small
Marina Rental Rate (13 do so now)
Average permit fee applied to piers over Public Trust Lands (City) only.
Residential Pier "Footprint" 1
L
Newport Beach Approach
PermitArea-.
The footprint of the pier and
gangway.
Doesn't include the water
Unless a "U" dock
Permit Rate-
$0.525/SF/year (by 2017)
Choice of annual or
longer -term permit
Current Terms
Simplified Permit (I page)
HOAs classified as residential
unless they rent to non-
members
Rental to 3rd parties allowed
10 Year permit available
Annual Fee: Ramps up to
SO.525 per square foot over
tidelands
2013
$0.129
per
sq/ft
2014
$0.228
per
sq/ft
Note: These are average 2015
$0.327
per
sq/ft
ramp -up rates... 2016
$0.426
per
sq/ft
2017
$0.525
per
sq/ft
40' Mooring "Footprint"
How would that look?
Total Area of one Mooring Ball = 3 sq. ft.
Total Area of two balls = 3 x 2 = 6 sq. ft.
Total Area of stringer line = 40' x floats 4" = 13 sq. ft.
Round the decimals to equal 20 sq. ft.
Multiply the 20 sq. ft. by the 0.525 per sq. ft. = $10.50
Apply the mooring to slip ration of 24% x $10.50 = $2.52
This is the annual rent for a 40' mooring: $2.52
Common Rebuttals
1.Property Taxes
2.Maintenance
3.No other use
Property laxes
Bayfront Property with Dock Peninsula Home without Dock
a zillow
,pO' Edit V S&ve ,,;�> Share More
3 bd I ba 1,079 sqft
509 36th St, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Off-marke-t
ZesCmate�l: $2,875,800 Rent Zestimate@: $4,749
- --- -------------------------
Est. refi payment: $18,565/mo 0 Refinance your loan
Homevalue Ownertools Homedetails Neighborhood dL-tails
Price history
Price hfstory is unavailable.
Public tax history
year Property taxes Tax assessment
2 0 12 -- $6,247 +1.8% $566,669 +211q
a Zillow
,�P E d it (,-� Save r,> 5 h a re o- IM o re
2 bd 1 ba 721 sqft
506 Clubhouse Ave, Newport BeaChr CA 92663
a Off-marke-t
Zest-�rnate-'�O:$4,344,900 Rentze-stimate-(�':$13,264
Est. refi payment: S28,048/mo 0 Refinance your loan
Homevalue Ownertool�s Hamedetalls Neighborhood details
--, Show more
Public tax history
Year Property taxes Tax assessment
-) n
..23 $18r538 +36.4% $1,716,273 437.9%
We all pay property taxes, so it"s irrelevant to the discussion, due to Prop 13, taxes paid relevant to the assessed value at time of sale
Maintenance
Maintenance (50 Years): $10,000
Total: $10,000
6
-10
_1C
Reg. Biannual Maintenance (50 Years): $50,000
Total: $50,000
I-f
(double -point)
Source: Eric Langenbach retired equipment operator, marine construction. 19
No Other Use
ov
Yes, you can easily construct marina style slips in front of private property as seen in the above images. Entranceways,
can be constructed on public property at the street ends
These are the same USE..
A boat occupies the same space above the tidelands regardless of it's position in the Harbor
_X&WCrXA
C:L
(1) -5
C3
L_
C)
CO
10
Dock
L
1 C
Mooring
(double -point) w
Image sources: https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/glossarV 21
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/mooring-permittees
Our Story
We are everyday people: veterans,, teachers, postmen, pastors, captains, fishermen,
sailorsl and recreational boaters.
Increases to mooring fee's will have dramatic impacts on the many users of the Harbor.
This will force many liveaboards to become homeless. Other neighboring Harbors will
not be able to accommodate the mass migration of boats that will be forced out of
Newport Harbor.
There
are many retiree's
that
are
living on a
fixed
income and
to raise rates
by 400-
500%
would
absolutely
decimate
any money they
set aside
for mooring rent.
etze r
Possible Conflicts of Interest?
1.Objective and Scope of RFP 21-53
2.Fifty Year, ZERO FEE, Ground Lease
3.1nterest Bearing Loan
Is there a conflict of interest?
The Fundamentals of a Conflict of Interest Code
A conflict of interest code must:
-D Provide reasonable assurance that all foreseeable potential conflict of interest situations will be
disclosed or prevented-,
9 Provide to each affected person a clear and specific statement of his or her duties under the conflict of
interest code; and
* Adequately differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities.
https://www.f ppc.ca.gov/1ea rn/ru I es-on-conf I ict-of-i nterest-codes. htm I
NEWPORT BEACH
Sear& in dDCUMent 0
CltyCouncli > CoundlMeetings > 2019 > OV22/2019 > AgendaPacket > 00-Non-Agenda-NAC-PowerPoirUHandout
5
t 4, �75 4� Q, G) G) ViewplaIntext
Re: Seeking Clarification/Additional Information
From: Jon Van Cleave ovdaw@sbcglobal.net)
To.- m ered ithcag le@ sbc 9 1 oba I net
C C: vets4 pets@ aol.corn; seskinner@rne-corn, bruce.'�bbetson@g�-nall.coi-n;i'ai-resbrlLtzer@aul.cof-n;
gcollins@craigre,31tygroup.com; findstevepattersoii@gmall.corn; djwarw1ck@roadrUnner.com:
bllly@newportaquaticcenter.caryi
Date. Sunday, October 1, 2017, 5:17 PM PDT
0*��
Meredith,
I have received YOUr additional request and comments.
Due to the current atmosphere surrOUnding the NAC Board of Directors activities, a response to you wil1l necessarily
need to come from a lawyer representing the NAC since it involves an Investigation into what occurred and how those
facts are interpreted based on the law in this area, There has been push back from other Board members regarding my
plan to have Snell and Wilmer respond to you on behalf of the NAC. Therefore, a response will have to wait until the
Board can agree on what lawyer will be authorized to prepare the response. This would be the only way to make sure
we get the analysis right the first time,
"T.
What is the NAC?
a
Newport Aquatic Center
Property Depiction
t
? X
Promises
Depiction
W
NAC official website — 1/26/24
NAC
CALIFORM&USA
California Secretary of State website. Filing date 1/2/24
NAC GIFT CARDS RESOURCES PROGRAMS NAC RACE RESULTS THINGS TO DO CALENDAR CAMPS CONTACT
James Netzer - Secretary
Principal Netzer and Associates Real Estate AppraisaL and Con5u(ting
Jim's wife is a member of the NAC Women's Outrigger Team and both his son and
daughter were members of the NAC Junior Rowing Team. His daughter went on to be an
assistant coach in the Junior Rowing program.
)amesbnetzer@aoL.com
Entity Details
Corporation Name NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
Entity No. 1067402
Formed In CALIFORNIA
Street Address of California PrincipaJ Office of Corporation
Street Address of CaJifornia Office I WHITECLIFFS DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Mailirg Address Of CDi-poration
Mailing Address 1 WHITECLIFFS DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Attention
Officers
Officer Name
Officer Address
Position(s)
James Netzer
306 ESTHER ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
Sec retary
29
Possible Conflicts of Interest?
1.0bjective and Scope of RFP 21-53
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�k
0A
k I
V�S]E p
Fo
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 21-53
ON -SHORE & OFF -SHORE MOORING APPRAISALS
AND
ON -CALL TIDELANDS APPRAISAL SERVICES
31
RFP No. 21-53
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Area Description
Scope of Services )
In RFP 21-53, the NAC is listed as apart of
the projects' Area Description
Newport Harbor is formed by the Balboa Peninsula on the south and the mainland on the
north and extends inland to Jamboree Road and the north end of the Upper Newport Bay
(Back Bay). The primary focus of this assignment is the Lower Newport Bay, which is
generally defined as the water area south of the Coast Highway Bridge near the
intersection of Coast Highway and Dover Drive. Traditionally, most of the boating activity
within the harbor is concentrated in the Lower Bay as most of the Back Bay is an
ecological preserve with limited boating facilities (Newport Dunes, Newport Aquatic
Center, UCI Rowing base, Bayside Village and Dover Shores). The Balboa Peninsula
consists of all the contiguous land east of 45th Street extending to Peninsula Point and
the jetty at the mouth of Newport Harbor. The south side of the Peninsula consists of
sandy beaches on the Pacific Ocean while the north side of the Peninsula forms the
southern perimeter of Newport Harbor.
32
RFP No. 21-53 1
Oboective and Project Scope
The purpose of this study is to investigate and provide appropriate analysis to determine
the Fee Simple Interest in the City owned on -shore and off -shore moorings. and the
resulting Fair Market Rent to charge mooring permittees. Boaters within Newport Harbor
have a variety of options to store their boats close -to or on the waters of Newport Harbor.,
The City's on -shore and off -shore moorings should be compared to all other options
around the harbor, with adjustments rnade in consideration of the amenities that may be
offered at moorings versus other locations. Locations to review for comparlson 'Include
ma ri n as, yacht cl u bs. d ry docks.. o n la nd d i ng hy sto ra g e. th e N ewport Aq u atic Ce nter an d
the Dunes Waterfront Resort.
RFP 21-53, explicitly states that the NAC is a location to review for comparison
Lets search the 2023 Netzer Offshore Mooring Appraisal for the words "Newport Aquatic Center"
0 jea rcfk
ArrB nZe Wi rKkym
Looking For:
n-ewp o rt aq uati c center i n the cu rre nt d o cu ment
R--�LE:
1 d o cu rn-ent(s) with 1 i nsta n c-e(s)
Only one instance of the words "Newport
aquatic center" were found in the entire
appraisal report. And it was the exact copy
and paste of the area description found in
the RFP 21-53. So they weren't even Netzer's
own words.
ARE, A DESCRIPTION
Newport Harbor is the focal point of the incorporated city of Newport Beach, which is located in
coastal Orange County approximately 10 miles southwest of the Santa AM CiViC Center. The
coastal city was incorporated on September 1, 1906. The U.S. Census Bureau reports an estimated
population of 85,239 persons as of April 2020, an increase from 85,186 persons as of the 2010
Census. According to the City Chamber of Commerce, the influx of the tourist population during
the summer months increaws the population to over 100,000 persons.
Newport Beach is located 85 miles north of San Diego, 14 miles south of Long Beach and 50 miles
from downtown Los Angeles. The City's elevation ranges from sea level to 691 feet. With the
annexation of Newport Coast, the City is oomprised of approximately 25 square miles of land area,
approximately 25.5 square miles bay, harbor and ocean waters for a total area of approximately
50.5 square miles. The city has 6.1 miles of ocean frontage and 25.4 miles of harbor frontage.
Newport Harbor is one of the largest pleasure craft harbors on the West Coast and is home to
approximately 9,900 boats, 1,230 piers, 2,330 commercial slips and side ties and 1,160 moorings.
Newport Harbor is formed by the Balboa Peninsula on south and the mainland on the north and
extends inland to Jamboree Road and the north end of the Upper Newport Bay (Back Bay). The
primary focus of this assignment is the Lower Newport Bay, which is generally defined as the
water area south of the Coast Highway Bridge near the intersection of Coast Highway and Dover
Drive. Traditionally, most of the boating activity within the harbor is concentrated in the Lower
9
Newport HarborOffshore Moorings
Newport Beach, California December 16,2023 NETZER & ASSOCIATES
Day as most of the Back Bay is an ecological preserve with limited boating facilities (Newport
Dunes, Newport Aquatic Center, U.C.I. Rowing base, Bayside Village and Dover Shores). The
Balboa Peninsula consists of all the contiguous land east of 43' Street extending to Peninsula Point
and the jetty at the mouth of Newport Harbor. The south side of the Peninsula consists of sandy
beaches on the Pacific Ocmn while the north side of the Peninsula forms the southern perimrt,,-r
of Newport Harbor.
APPRAISAL REPORT
FAIR MARKET RENT
OFFSHORE MOORINGS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DATE OF VALUE
DECEMBER26,2023
PREPARED FOR
LAUREN WOODING WHITLINGER
REAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR
4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
IiEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED BY
NETZER & ASSOCIATES
E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 206
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627
FILE NO. 2023-025
34
Possible Conflicts of Interest?
2.Fifty Year, ZERO FEE, Ground Lease
NAC Board Meeting Minutes — 1/18/16
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER) INC.,
a California non-profit Corporation
Date: January 18, 2016
Time: 6:30 Pm
Place: Conference Room at the NAC
Board Members Present:
Dr. William A. Grant, 11
Ion Van Cleave
Greg Collins
Dave Girling
Susan Skinner
Jim Netzer
Linda Ilay
Bruce lbbetson
NAC Board Meeting Minutes
Jim is added to the Finance Committee
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
2-16-16
Meeting was called to order at 6:43 pm. by Bill Grant.
Quorum met, Susan Skinner is on her way.
Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Greg Collins
Jon Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girling via speaker phone
Susan Skinner - 7:34 arrived
Since the State rules are that the Members of the Finance Committee and the Audit
Committee must not overlap, all agree that Dave is therefore removed from the
Finance Committee and Jim is added as a member of the Finance Committee.
37
NAC Board Meeting Minutes
February Meeting
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
2-16-16
Meeting was called to order at 6:43 prn by Bill GranL
Quorum met, Susan Skinner is on her way.
Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Creg Collins
)on Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girfing via speaker phone
Susan Skinner - 7 -.3 4 arrived
Since the State rules are that the Members of the Finance Committee and the Audit
Jim is added to the Finance Committee Committee must not overlap, all agree that Dave is therefore removed from the
Finance Committee and Jim is added as a member of the Finance Committee.
Jim is also the Chair of Facilities Management
Jim is providing updates on the NAC soon to
Be expiring Ground Lease with the City of
Newport Beach
Facilities Management - chair. Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim will add to the Facilities Mission Statement that "non -board members" added to
the Committee require approval by the Board.
Jim's update on ground lease... Draft ready for review the end of this week, then to
planning and attorney, a couple of weeks and then back ... —30 days. 38
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 3-15-16
LOCATION: NAC
MEETING AGENDA
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:43
Quorum met.
Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Greg Collins
Jon Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girling
YaYa Hav
As the months go by, Jim Netzer continues to
Provide updates to the progress of renewing the
no -fee ground lease with the city.
Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim,, Gre& Bruce
Bill Netzer reported on parking lot progress. Stripe the handicap spaces and install
signs. Slurry will be scheduled based on weather. 79 regular spaces, 4 handicap
spaces.
Question was raised on speed bump by the stop sign. Billy would like to reinstall
the speed bump close to stop sign, but it might be city property. Contact Shawn at
the city to see what the recommendation would be as far as speed bump placement.
Ground Lease has been drafted and in approval process with the City. Lease is for 55
years. Still up in the air for how to submit for council approval.
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 4-20-16
LOCATION- NAC
MEETING AGENDA
Next month, another update. Who is Lauren Wooding?
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call Facilities Management - chair: Jim
Meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm by Bill Grant. current members; Jim, Greg, Bruce
Quorum met. Jim gave update from Lauren Wooding on lease. Tom, a contact of jim's, will take a
look at the extension to review.
Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce lbbetson
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Jon Van Cleave
Linda Hay (YaYa)
Susan Skinner - Call In
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 5-17-16
LOCATION: NAC
6:30 Prn Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call
Meeting was called to order at 7:13 pm by Bill Grant.
Quorum met.
Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce lbbetson
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Ion Van Cleave
Linda Hay (YaYa)
Susan Skinner
Another month goes by and another update from Jim
Netzer
Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim reviewed letter from city. Sean said once the proposed lease reaches the City
Attorney, doesn't take that long. Sean and Laura will be at the meeting. Will be on
Consent Calendar. If it gets pulled, it would go to a Study Session first.
41
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on B-16-16
LOCATION: NAC
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call
Meeting was called to order at 7:13 pm by Bill Grant.
Quorum met.
Roll Call
Bill Grant
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Ion Van Cleave
Donna Warwick
Steve Patterson
YaYa Hay (call in)
Next update, Jim says that it has made the
stage where the City Attorney reviews it.
Who was the City Attorney at that time?
Same City Attorney we have today. Surely,
he knew Netzer was a NAC Board Member.
Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim reported that the ground lease has been approved by the County and it is now
being reviewed by the City Attorney.
42
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 10-18-16
LOCATION: NAC
MEETING MINUTES
Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:40 pm by Bill Grant.
Quorum was met,
Roll Call: Bill Grant, Bruce lbbetson, Greg Collins, Donna Warwick, Jim Netzer, Jon
Van Cleave, Steve Patterson, Susan Skinner, YaYa Hay
The ground lease has now made it Facilities Management - jim�
through the City Attorney.
Report submitted Facilities Management via e-mail for BoD review. The Re -draft of
the Ground Lease has made it through the City Attorney's office. Have been getting
complaints about parking after hours in the public parking lot. See Jim's e-mailed
report. Jim is working with Laura Detwieler on the "sea to mountain" bill. Bill
designed to create more open space and passive use of land. Doesn't look like it will
change any of the current uses relating to the NAC.
43
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 11-22-16
LOCATION: NAC
MEETING MINUTES
Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:44 pm by Bill Grant.
Quorum was met.
Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce Ibbetson
Donna Warwick
Jim Netzer
Jon Van Cleave
Steve Patterson
Susan Skinner
YaYa Hay
Interesting items to note while reviewing
the Board of Director Meeting Minutes.
Netzer clearly knows the going ons of the
harbor.
In this meeting minute, Netzer appears to
know that the contractor working on the
Bay Club is looking for somewhere to put
sand.
Note: This is early stage discussion only. Dredging (RPG54) blanket permit.
Contractor that is doing major projects (like Bay Club) is looking for a site to deposit
good sand. Have a conversation to 'have a new beach' with the reclaimed dredging
sand. Jim Netzer working on this project.
01
Newport Aquatic Center
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes In this meeting minute, Netzer appears to know that the
1/17/2017 City is getting flack from environmental groups about the
location that the City is proposing to put the new trash
All Directors in attendance. water wheel.
It looks like there might be a quid -pro -quo?
Facility Management
0 Sign that faces the parking lot that says "Respect our neighbors, drive the speed limit, thank you
from NAC"
City is still working on the bollard by the entrance gate to close off the entrance but not the exit
Water Wheel — proposing one in NB, getting flack from environmentalist because they want to
put it up by Jamboree
* Jim is going to meeting about maybe getting it by NAC instead and get a new dock
* My Recycler — 14 year old from CdM, Jim meeting with him to get recycling bins at NAC
* Met with member about possibly increasing boat storage
45
Newport Aquatic Center — Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting
2/2812017
— Attendance: Bi Ily, Kirste n, Steve, Greg, Bruce, Donna, Bill Gra nt, JVC, Ma Iia, Pat
E
Facilities Management
9 Boat Storage Increase — when and by how much?
c) It will be on the individua I's anniversary date
o Steve and Jim are drafting th-e explanation letter
a JVC - in state of CA, any contract over $500 needs to be in writing
a Boat storage agreement is not as ctear as it should be
c The arnount of spots in the boathouse were updated on Jim's analysis
o Mallia will Oet 2016 actuals for boat storage income and will pinpoint the last increase
o VOTE- 100% f ncrease on a nn iversa ry of member's contract a nd April 1, 2017 start date (March 151 h
invoices a re se nt), Steve a nd Jim will ma rket
0
This is of interest. Is Jim involved with the setting of rates for boat storage at the NAC? Would this be an option for the
public to store boats in the harbor? Isn't the objective of the appraisal to be used to adjust rates for boat storage on
offshore moorings in the same harbor?
If the NAC is an option for boat storage and offshore moorings are an option for boat storage? Makes you wonder,
wouldn't these two things be in conflict with each other?
Newport Aquatic Center — Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting
DATE: 3/28/2017
TIME: 7:00 pm
ATTENDEES
Members Present: Bill, Greg, Kirsten, Susan, Jim, Bruce, Donna, Steve
Members Not Present: Jon
Staff: Billy, Malia
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Ground Lease — should have something in 2-3 weeks
Bollard will be put in May 8-9
Recycling —they are picking up every weekend, will try to get a couple more bins
Property assessment report — Greg, Jim and Bruce will meet
Great news! Looks like they may be weeks away from getting the ground lease
Oh no. What's this?
DailyPilot
NEWS
Schism over finances and leadership
makes for troubled waters at Newport
Aquatic Ccntcr
BY HILLARY DAVIS I STAFF WRITER
SEPT. 25, 2013 6:05 PM PT
Newport Aquatic Center faces
questions of financial
mismanagement
Scoff M. Reid
PUBLISHED Oct<)ber 5. 2018 at 5-22 p.rr. I JPDATED- November 16, 2018 at 4:38 p.m.
Olympics, Sports
M
Let's take a pause on this possible conflict for
a moment..
Possible Conflicts of Interest?
3.1nterest Bearing Loan
CITY OF NFWPORT grACH
N-11 e\vpo,�� 'W LIviC Cwvt� Drim
INewport ".,h, ca if—i. 92EM
"'04-MI 1 949=35 PAX
�mpth�A�h��
'n
U
09
February 14, 2019
February 14, 2019
Sent via U.S. Mail
Board of Directors
Newperl Aquatic Center
One Whited As Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re� Management of the Newport Aquatic Center
To the Board of Directors
I write to you on behalf of the City of Newport Beach ("City") to express the City's
concern regarding the allegations made by community members regarding the
management of the Newport Aquatic Center ("NAC"). While numerous allegations
have been made, one of the most important issues for the City relates to the
governance of the NAC,
Although the City does not manage the programs offered by the NAC, ensuring
limited public resources are being appropriately managed is a critical issue forthe
City. To ensure effective management, the City first analyzes whether the entity
managing a public asset for public use is complying with the documents governing
its operations.
As you know, there have been allegations the NAC does not have the requisite
number of Directors set forth in the NAC's By -Laws dated August 2C, 2014 ("By -
Laws"). and the Facilities Management Plan ("FUIP") dated January 16, 1998.
Specifically, according to the By -Laws, the NAC Board of Directors ". . . shall
consist of at least 8 but not more then 20 Directors until changed by amendment
to these By -Laws.' Simila r[y, the FMP provdes in perfineni part that '[tlhe Aquatic
Center Board of Directors is composed of nine (9) members "
Based on the infc
of Directors has ti Sincerely,
FIVIFI. Having the
the City hereby r(
Urectors� and (21
correcting this del
aron Harp
City Attorney
City Attorney, Aaron Harp, writes a certified letter to the Board of
Directors at the NAC expressing concern over allegations.
To the Board of Directors:
I wrille to you on behalf of the C4 of Newport Beach �"City") to express ihe City's
' s
concern regarding the allegations made by community members regarding tjhe
managernent of the NewportAquatic Center ("INAC"). While numerous allegations
have been made, one of the most important �ssues for the Gity relates to the
governance of the NAC,
As you know, th ' e NAC's lease ("Ground Lease") with the City for the use of the
property ("Property") will expire on October 27, 2023. When the City Council
considers whether to enter into a new lease, or extend the term of the Ground
Lease, the City Council will consider: (1) the process utilized by the NAG to select
the Board of Directors members, and (2) whether the governance and aperatioD
structure of the NAC is consistent with best practices for non -prof its.
Allegation that NAC Board of Directors issued loans, or delivered money. to
the NAC, in exchange for interest from the NAC;
Allegation that Executive Director Whitford made personal use of funds
derived from a loan to the NAC, issued by NAC Board Member Jim Netzer;
NAC Response Letter to Aaron Harp
IHEUIPOR
i T ROURTIC CEnTER
CITY OF ��WPOR
CCF
zLD 6Y
MAR 18 Z019
OFFICCOFTHI-=
CrrYATrQFINE�y
Mmvh 15,2019
Mr. Aaron 14arp
City Atto'n1ey
I 0(f Ci'�ic CcntcT DT ivc
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dt�ar Mr. Harp:
Thi s. lEtter is i n respimse to your lefter dated February 14, 2 U 19.
We also, decidcd to not bombard you with all of the dmurnelatation thaL supports our
positions. If there is any particular matter that you would like to see, please identify it for us.
On behalf of the NAC, we desire to perpetuate the long history of its relationship with the
City and in accordance with the mission formed in 1982 to serve the public — all of the public
and not some segment of it. We remain ready, wAling and able to meet with such City officials
to lay the groundwork for the next 25 years because that is what the public deserves.
Dr. William Grant, President
,4
Billy Whitford, Extecuti e Director
b, The Loanl by Mr. Netzer.
In early 2015 Mr. Whitford wasconccmed about the reliability of the white truck used to
trailer boats to the regattas and indicated that the NAC needed a new truck. During this time
period the bathroom/locker room renovation was in full swing and with all of the mquired change
orders, the NAC cash flow was being affected. As a result, Mr. Netzer offered to make a 3-year
loan to the NAC that was secured by a Promissory Note so that a reliable truck could be
purchased without having to apply for an auto loan and make principal and interest payments.
This arrangement was discussed at the April 21, 2015 Board meeting and approved. According,
the loan was made. At each of the three annual dates when payments were due, Mr. Neizer
donated the interest payment to the NAC. The loan was repaid in October 2018.
The loan was a valid transaction and is -no tonger reflected on the books and records of
the NAC.
52
4�w_ Poly
T"
§
April 19, 20 19
SENT VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Board of Directors
Newport Aquatic Center
One Whitecliffs Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
CITY 0� N RVIP0 11T F, EAC I -
100 Civic Ce nte r Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-!113� 1 949 544-M9 5AX
RE: Newport Aquatic Center Ground Lease — Notice of Default
To the Board of Directors:
As you are aware, the City of Newport Beach (ILC[tyl') is deeply concerned regarding the
management of the Newport Aquatic Center. In our letter dated February 14, 2019, the
City Attorney's Office asked the Board of Directors for the Newport Aquatic Center, Inc.
("NAG") to resperd to the allegafions of mismanagement. Our office has now reviewed
the MaTch 15, 2019 correspondence from the NAG ("NAG Letter'), which responds tu
these allegations, as well as information provided by third parties.
Unfortunately, the NAC Lefler has not relieved the City of its concerns regarding the
management of the Newport Aquatic Center. In fact, based on all of the information
available, it is our opinion the NAG has violated the terms of the ground lease between
the City and the NAC ("Ground Lease")- Based thereon, the City is formally putting the
NAG on notice 11 is in default of the terms of the Ground Lease. As set torth below, the
NAG must Immediately correctthe violations orthe City will beforced to take action, which
could include termination of the Ground Lease.
Furthcrmore, the City is troubled by the fact that the NAC is unwilling to immediately take
steps to comply with City Council Policy F-7. As you are aware, the City recently modified
Courcil Policy F-7 to require non -profits, such as the i who lease City property, at
less than the market rate, to provide for election of directors in an open, democratic, and
transparent process.
In the NAG Letter. the NAC contends that Council Policy F-7 does not apply to the NAG.
Our office has reviewed the NAC Letter and we disagree with your analysis regarding the
applicability of Council Policy F-7 to any renewal or extension of the Ground Lease.
Newpo rt Aq u at ic Cente r G ro u nd Lease — N ofice of Defa u It
April 19, 2019
Page: 2
However, debating whether Council Policy F-7 is applicabie to the NAC is somewhat
pointless given that the City does not have to renew or extend the Ground Lease. Based
thereon, you are hereby advised that the City will not be entering into negotiations with
the NAC to renew or extend the Ground Lease.
Notice of Default
P u i nt to Secti on 2 3 of the G rou nd Lease, the C ity is h e re by p u tti ng the NAC a n noti ce
that the NAC is in default in the performanoe of material covenants and conditions of the
Ground Lease, as set forth below. Failure to immediately comply with all terms and
conditions of the Ground Lease will faroe the City to take action, which could include
termination of the Ground Lease.
Prohibited Business Activities
As you are aware, Section 15 of the Ground Lease states that 'no business" shall be
conducted on the Property in violation of the terms of the Ground Lease. Section 14 of
the Ground Lease states that NAC is "prohibited from using, or permitting others to use,
the facility in any manner which is not authorized by, or inconsistent with, the approved
[Facilities Managamant Plard " C7tirlkaarme-krm Qmrti,%ir-h 14 of the Ground Lease provides
that "failure of [N Respectfully, [his paragraph after written notice
by [City] shall be `�'Ty ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dase.'
-A ,,- C �, - V
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorrey
cc: City of Newport Beach City Coundi Members
Carol Jacobs, AssiSt21nt City Manager
David B. Dimitrulk, Lsq-
53
Could this be nothing?
If he simply disclosed that he was a Board of Director for a facility
named in the Objective and Scope of the RFP, or if he disclosed that he
made an interest-bea ring loan to a facility named in the Objective and
Scope of the RFP, and/or he disclosed that he had negotiated a ZERO
FEE lease agreement with the City's Real Property Administrator,
Lauren Wood ing-Whitl inger, whom he prepared the Appraisal for, then
maybe this would be nothing. But did he?
Let's look. Maybe he mentioned it in the Appraisal document? Maybe
he mentioned it in his services agreement? Maybe in his form 700's?
ON -CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH JAMES B. NETZER DBA NETZER & ASSOCIATES FOR
PROPERTY APPRAISAL SERVICES
THIS ON -CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement-) is
made and entered into as of this 23rd day of December, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and
between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and
charter city ("City"), and JAMES B. NETZER A SOLE PROPRIETOR DOING
BUSINESS AS ("DBA-) NETZER & ASSOCIATES, ("Consultant"), whose address is
170 E. Seventeenth Street, # 206, Costa Mesa, California 92627, and is made with
reference to the followinq:
24. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
24.1 Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
Califomia Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to
disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work
performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or
participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.
24.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the
Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless
City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this
Section.
oc'o
2016 — On -Call Professional
Appraisal Agreement
Signed by Jim Netzer
and City Attorney Aaron Harp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the dates written below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date- I L /-../I C-
BY: A02 ( J;-I—
Aaron C. Ha?o
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Date:
BYA&J�hv-
L605NYSrow�J '-- '_
City Clerk VIW
4(
0
[END OF S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date. /iv
By: :I:/'< /I 'rig/h'ay(
Kimberly Brandt, AIGP
Community Development Department
Director
CONSULTANT: James B. Netzer, a sole
proprietor doing business as ("IDBA-)
Netzer & As5QCiatQ5
Date: lAt2ir Ize 14�
� t\ -1
By:
James B. Netz�r, MAI
Sole Proprietor
IGNATURES]
55
2016 Off -shore Appraisal
In the scope of experience, he mentions he has some kind of experience with conflict -of -interest analysis
APPRAISAL REPORT
FAIR MARKET RENT
OFF -SHORE & ON -SHORE MOORINGS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DATE OF VALUE
JANUARY 6,2016
PREPARED FOR
CHRIS MILLER
HARBOR MANAGER
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, HARBOR DEPARTMENT
829 HARBOR ISLAND DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED BY
NETZER & ASSOCIATES
170 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 206
COSTA MESA, CALMORNIA 92627
FILE NO, 2015-024
ScoK of Experience
During the period in which Mr. Netzer has been engaged as a real estate appraiser and analyst, he
has been involved in most aspects of the rield having completed assignments for multiple purposes,
including: estate planning, bankruptcy; conflict -of -interest analysis (Political Reforrn Act of 1974);
construction defects litigation; soil subsidence; dissolution of marriage; ground lease rc-valuation,
leasehold & sub-leaschold valuation; property tax appeals; lease and ground lease arbitration;
casement/acc,ess/cncroachmcnt/title disputes (based on Overholizer v. Northern Counties Title);
soils contamination litigation; mortgage lending; construction financing; portfolio valuation; market
and feasibility analysis; fractional interest valuation; and, due diligence.
Further in the document, he certifies that he has no conflict of interest
Newport 11arbor INloorings
Newport Beach, California January k 2016
CERTIFICATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, T certify that:
NETZER & ASSOCIATES
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
The reported analysM opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional
analyses, opinions and conclusions.
I have no present or prospwive interest in the property that is the subject of this
report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding
the property that is the subject of this report within the thTee-year period
immediately preceding acceptance of the this assignment.
I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the
parties involved in the assignment. 56
2023 Off -shore Appraisal
APPRAISAL REPORT
FAIR MARKET RENT
OFFSHORE MOORINGS
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DATE OF VALUE
DFCEMBER 26.2023
LAUREN WOODING WHIT1INGER
REAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PREPARED BY
NET7ER & ASSOCIATES
170 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET. SUITE 206
COSTA MFSA, CALIFORNIA 92627
FILE NO. 2023-025
Doesn't mention the NAC., No -Fee 50 Year Ground Lease
U no interest or bias"
Newport IiHrbor Ofrshore Moorings
Ncwport ftaclh, California December 26, W23 N ETZE R & ASSOC I ATES
CERTIFICATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that-.
r Fhe staternerits of fact contained in this report arc true and cor7ccl.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by thC reported
assumptiuns and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional
analyses, opinions and conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
report, and have no personal interest or bias with rcspert to the p&rt1c.5 involvcd.
I performed an appraisal of the "onshore" moorings in December 2021 and an
appraisal of the "City owned offshore moorings" in 2023. 1 have provided no other
services, as an apprw ser or in any wher capacity, regarding the property that is the
subject of this report within the th-ree-year period immediately preceding
acceptance of this assignment.
I have no hiag with respect to the properly that Is the sublect of this report or to the
parties involved in the assigmnent.
My engagement in this assign=nt was not contingent upon developing or
reporting predewrimined rcsults.
My compensation is not contingent upnn the reNriing of A predetermined value or
direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the ainount of the value
estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occur7encc of a subsNueni
event.
The reported inaly%es, opinions, and conclusions were developecl, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity %ith the Code of Proficssional. Ethics and
Standards of Profcbsiunal Appraisal Practice of [he Appraisal Institute, which
include the Uniform SrandardN ofFrofessional Appraisal Practice,
The use af this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute
relating to review by its duly authorized rcprcsenintives.
I have made a personal inspection of a representative sampling of the proper -ties
that art the subject of this report.
Newport Harhor Offshore Moorings
Newport Beach, California Decem be r 26, 2023 NETZER & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFICATION
To the best of rny knowledge and belief, I certl`f� that:
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which
include the Uniform Standards of'Professional Appraisal Practice.
Let's look deeper into this Appraisal Institute and Code of Professional
Ethics and Standards
Code of Professional Ethics and Appr
Explanatory Comments Instit
ER 3-6
a
aisal
ute",
I
01
In Valuation Practice it
is unethical to provide a
service
if
a Valuer has
any
direct or indirect,
current, or prospective
personal interest in the
subject
or
outcome of
the
service or with
respect to the parties involved in the service, unless:
(a) prior to agreeing to provide the service, the Valuer carefully considers the facts and
reasonably concludes that he or she would remain unbiased and reasonable persons,
under the same circumstances, would reach the same conclusion;
(b) such personal interest is disclosed to the client prior to the Valuer agreeing to provide
the service; and
(c) such personal interest is d isclosed-in -each., Report or other communication provided to
the client resulting from such service.
59
051700175-KM -0175
CALIFORNIAFORm 700 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
I TIC &I TRAC. T—S COVER PAGE
A 0-&1;-
CAUFORNIAFORm 700
K
WIN MuMA� PRACI LCFA DOMill$MN
':
A PUBLIC DOCQFAE�
PUBLIC "!III-E,
Dae IniNal Filing Rece�vac
F -�U-
( xz 0* 1
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
COVER PAGE
A Public Documenr
COVER PAGE
N-tz
1. 0
Aq,
Pfw� Too
'm ,
N.r—
0, prkv P �k
CALIFORNIA FORm 700
I CH
A
"M MI-WCAL F RACTICES COMMON
2. Ju
CALIFORNIAFORM
WE OF F� III,G, MCA, "ACMUS C E
3. yy
1fl
2. JU
El
Age
2. Ju
0
E1
xx]
Ell
r-1
3. Fy
M1
a. Ty
1K
PAS" Jypd, 0? P NX M ink
Clato Imbal FXng Roe6vIM
F�, �- � �0
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
1 1414:143 '09
piling 0.
1%13TIS5 GQVERNK�NT I AM A... HOW DO I... TPENDING
"w"", I 1 -.1
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
^r"IrInt nAf-r
Fv"—
ffeej, �—. 2.
1. Office, Aciencv. or Court
AgencyNne �DonalLsfta= S)
ci�y f N-- 9—h
Divirwon, Bowd. Depadmenl- 10sinct if
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST,'
COVER PAGE
Your Pmkon
Dale "liatFlog RecW�d
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (SEI)
Fm,,�
FORM 700
Date Inital I'ding
P--ce�ved
W—
Go to Search foi E-Filed Transaction Data
Search for Filed Statements
49 5,
�6�-
I, d,
Filing Date
4. Scl
2. Jur
C-t-altant
cz�D - - Aseoc4-a-a
C]s
P I ffing lor awMcle pyAws. lia Wowix on an ata� (Do Wuse
acwym�
so
El I
Age-r.
Posdom
11
2. Jurisdict ion of Office foed mt Iem�l orm box)
1
0 1
TTyP4
F-1 SUili
EI Jw9e of couq comffl�Aom iskaltw& Junoaonl
.or-
4. Sch
Scf
4. Sch,
Fxl A
Elmulli-CDWY
El CoulIN of
Sch
al cil� of N-T-rl Re�H%
ather
5. Vei
3. Type of Statement a.,* a iemt . b..)
A
AdWAL71h e pa dad w�rad io Jw uary 1. 20 1 B. th� gh
Lmk4 Dwkt& Dat LeR
or-
D�c�mbar 11. 2018
(C-1hack circle)
LAI
. or_
d
-rho, pen�d covered is 11hrough
Tr* pwod cover-�dl IS jVbwy 1, 2018. Wough LhIff date
L—E-]
5. Vey
71 1
D—b� 31. 2o 113
offim.
4. Sche
Asstffikg 01`11cw Dato &ssumd ---- 1---J—
0 The perod wwred is J. Vowo Um dale
hw
&A
5. Ven
Sehe
of �awng offlu.
f
15P
L
Dw
4, Scbeduk Summary (must connqlet�,) - Total number of pWs including this cover page:
I Pd
Schedules aftached
rign
I hil,
E] Schedula A-1 - rimVrwis - 5dwdkd? am0ed
C1 S ch@Wo C - khom, Loans, & Bus-ims Pxibons - schedulo allachad
cq
Im"
E] Schadde A-2 - Irnesrwas - "di�amcw
U-1 SchedLile D - ktw* - Gifts - �c hedula atathed
I eb
5, ved
E] SchedUo 8 - Pear Pmperfy - w1wdule alladed
1-1 $ChodLd� E - kX.VM - GitS - Tavof PWals - whedde altached
uwi
Dr.
-;�
I W None - No reWfl&e inMf�sfs on any schedA
CIDID - Netzer &
Netzer, James
311/2024
Annual
View
Associates
CIDID - NetzeF &
Netzer, James
211612023
Annual
View
Associates
CIDD - Netzer &
Natzer, James
318/2021
Annual
View
Associates
CIDID - Netzer &
Netzer, James
315/2020
Annual
View
Associates
GDD - Netzer &
Natzer, James
212512019
Annual
View
Associates
Netzer, James
212612018
Annual
View
I -11w- --w- —r—
All form 700 submissions list "NONE — No reportable
interest of any schedule"
Wait. What happened to the lease renewal?
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
October 10, 2023
Agenda Iterin No� 12
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sean Levin, Recreation and Senior Services Director - 949-644-
3151, slevin@newpor-tbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator,
Jvvooding@newpc)rtbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3236
TITLE: Joint Powers Agreement with County of Orange, and an Amended
and Restated Ground Lease with Newport Aquatic Certer, Inc. for
North Star Beach Located at 1 Whitediffs Drive
Just 13 days before the existing 50 year lease was about
to expire. Lauren Wooding Whitlinger prepares this staff
report to Council and the Mayor.
History
RECOMMENDATIONS:
C) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Amended and Restated
Ground Lease between the City of Newport Beach and Newport Aquatic Certer, Inc.,
for continued use of the property known as North Star Beach located at 1 Whitediffs
Drive. in a form substantially similar to the amendment attached to the staff report;
and Ully (IT IN-MMOIrT IIIINNN�94_
d) Approve a waiver of City Council Policy F-7 — Income and Other Property based on
the findings contained In this staff report and the Lease, that conducting an open bid
process or changing the tenant would result in excessive vacancy, and the use of the
property provides an essential or unique service to the community and is of a public
benefit, and might not otherwise be provided where an open bid or full fair market
value of the property be required, and based on the unique services provided by
tenant, its board mombers are 2pp&nted through a process that ensures board
members maintain the requisite experience and contributions to the tenant's
operations.
Amended and Restated Ground Lease
The proposed terms of the Lease are summarized below:
1. The initial term is 30 years, with two, 110-year- extension options, for a total possible
term of 50 years, unless terminated earlier as provided by the Lease.
NAC approached the City in 2016 requesting a new lease for the Premises in
consideration of its recent renovation to the restroom and locker rooms, and in
anticipation of further renovations to the facility and the fleet of vessels. After negotiating
a new lease and JPA, the documents were submitted to the County Board of Supervisors
and the JPA was approved by the County on November 20, 2018. Additional negotiations
between the City and NAC delayed bringing the new agreements forward until this time.
DailyPilot
NEWS
Newport Beach City Council approves
extension of ground lease for Aquatic
Center
Pi�ddl.. gt —dy i. h-d out into th. —t& it t" Newport Aq-ti. C—t- in Ma�h 202.1 TM! Gity of N—prt U-1h.
through a juint p—rs �kgreernent with t1he county re�ently apprmiid an extendLd lard litase hir the (mnter �Dan LeaGh
St.H Plh.tgr.ph-�
V LILLY NGIL�YFN I STAFF WRITER
OCT. 11. 202's 6;05 PM n
P:>
ne Newport Aquatic Centerwill. continue to operate at its current location for at
least a 3o-year terin, thanks to approval given Tuesday by the Newport Beach City
Conncil to extend its existing ground lease.
The agenda item to approve the newleasewas originally folded into the council's
consent calendar but was pulled by Councilman Brad Avery for discussion.
TILe terms of the amended contract provide an initial 3o-year term %ith t'Ao ig-vGar
extension options for a total possible term of 5o years. It maintainsp ast points of
agreement, such as being a no -fee lease for the continued operations of the center at
no cost to the city, being held to a city -approved facilities management Plan and
abiding by all -entitlements and permits issued by the city, county, state and federal
agencies.
The city's real property manager Lauren Wooding Whitlinger s aid the newly -
approved agreement requires the Newwrt Aquatic 'Center to spend 3% of its gross
revenues on repairs, maintenance and refurbishments to the facility. It also requires
inspections, includes internal control language, and specifically defines the period of
time that the center will have to ameliorate any identified issues.
Council members spoke highly of the New -port Aquatic Center, though Avery noted he
pulled the iteni so the council could more fiffly discuss the nonprcfit'sway forward.
Avery said he -w-as in favor of the new agreement and described it as "far more robust"
than the existing document but did raise concerns about zQma-Q�gzd trouble -
the Newport Aquatic Center faced in 2LLLa and =43., including allegations of financial
misconduct, harassment and retaliation. Court reoords indicate deliberations in some
of those la-;vsuits continued until early 2023.
'I have no idea what has transpired in those, but it just, to me, when you see that, it
makes youwonder whatwas going on thexe," Avery said.
M
On Wednesday, Chris Blank, president of the Newport Aquatic Center's board of
directors, said officials there were "very pleased" with the extended agreement. I
63
Was the appraisal independent?
The Harbor Commission repeatedly states they requisitioned an
independent professional appraisal
Appraisal Report Review
of
Fair Market Rent
for
Offshore Moorings
Januar-y 10, 2024
PrLsented By: Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner
Was the a
indepen
ppraisal
dent?
The Harbor Commission repeatedly states
they requisitioned an independent
professional appraisal
Harbor Commission Subcommittee Fair Market Rates Considerations:
• The long history of below -market rental rates for mooring permits in Newport
Harbor
• What is relative to the rates charged for other uses of City tidelands
• What is relative to the rates charged for slips in Newport Harbor
• The extensive analysis presented in the recent offshore and onshore
independent professional appraisals
�ronl: Scatt "nningha
To: Arn Netzer
Cc: Wood im, Lau re
Subject: 45" Newport Off -shore Mooring in D Field - boat& - by owner - morine sale - craiq.&list
Date: September 21), 2023 1:03:50 PM
Amadiments: 45" Newwrt Offshore Moorina in D Field - boats - bv owner - marine sale - (43SIiSt.13110
Nice tidy profit...
�From:
Cunninaham, Sca
To:
Jim Netzer
Cc:
Woodina, Lauren
Subject:
Fwd: alert: Newport Mooring
Date:
June 09, 2022 10:17:32 AM
Hi Jim,
Probably going to move forward with offshore appraisal towards end of Summer but wanted
you to keep th�i's for vour records. Check out last sentence.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Cunningham
Begin forwarded rnemage
From: CL S�-,arch <aIWs(q-Wtrts.craigdi9.org>
Date. June 9,2022 at 9�36-41 AM PDT
To.!3cottl 2159@iclolw-com
Subject: alert: Newport Mooring
I now rc5ult for search term5. -.Newport Mooring, sort: relevant, as of 2022-06-09 W36:37
AM PDT
. ZLe-k�
W all I
g�rmm='
Commissioner Cunningham is seen here sending emails of craigslist ads, which shows the purported listings of craigslist
ads for offshore moorings for sale
From: ja mesbnetzer-A-aolixorn
To: Wooding, Lauren- Blank Paul
Subject: Offshore Mooring Appraisal Question
Date: December 05, 2023 4:08:15 PM
[EXTERNAL E--NLAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachnients iinless yon recognize the sender and know the
,�ontent is Safe.
Lauren & Paul,
I am trying to get the draft appraisal completed but I have a question about the size of
a "typical" mooring and the square feet of tidelands that it encumbers. On
methodology I apply the "land value" to the square footage and convert it to a rental
rate. In the onshore mooring appraisal I based the value on an onshore mooring
encumbering an area of 288 square feet (36' x 8') based on the "typical" area from the
point of attachment (seawall) to the mooring buoy/ball and an 8' beam. What
dimensions and square footage should I use for the offshore mooring?
Thanks for your assistance!
Regards,
Jim Netzer 1 67
From:
To:
S u bj ect:
Date:
Attachments:
j a niesbnetzer(,&,aol.corn
Woodina, Lauren
Offshore Mooring Phase -In
January 17, 2024 2:41:46 PM
Offshore Moorina Phase In.r)df
%I
[EXTERNAL ENUIL] DO NOT CLICK hilks or attachments wiless you recognize the selider and L iow the
,-.olltent is safe.
Lauren,
The phase in we discussed is attached. Let me know if have any comrnents or
questions.
Regards,
Jirn Netzer
M.
From: Scully, Steve
To: ]a mosbnot7oOdnol. rom
Cc: Bepr. Ira; Cunningham. Soo ; Blank, Pau
Subject: Rei VRAFF - Offshere MoorIng Appraisal w/ Tlered rates
Date: Decembler 27, 2023 2:37:13 PM
Jim, just some housekeeping -the "Table of Contents" needs some formatting work to a L
be symmetrical.
Additionallyyou have your page number 2 in this draft twice. Just a FYI.
I like the table with the broken out rates better than just one rate.
Thank for the quick turn.
Regards,
Steve Scully
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
sscully@newportbeachca.gov
909-322-2893
Ira,
I'll wait for your comments or for you to give me the go-ahead
to finalize.
Regards,
Jim Netzer
Jarres B. Net2er, MAI
Netzer & Associates
From:
beer, Ira
To-
Scully, Stevii jamesbnetzer(agolcom
C c.-
Cunningham, Scott Blank, Plaul
Subject:
Re: DRAFr - Offshore MoGdnq Appraisal w/ Inered rabEs
Date-
December 27, 2029 2:50:07 W
Attachments:
�rnam-001.pna
Agreed, unless there are any other comments from Paul or Scott, please move fvvd with the final
report as you see fit. Thank you and have a Happy New Year!
Best regards,
Ira Beer
HarbDr Commissioner
ibeeirOnewpQrtbeachcamov
(949) 702-6900
From; Wooding, Lauren
To; Beer, Ira iamesbneter(aaol.corn
Cc: Blank, Paul; Scully, Ste P Cunningham, Sco
Subject: RE: DRAFT` - Offshore Mooring Appraisal w� Tiered rates
Date: January 04, 2024 12:28:00 PM
Attachments: [rnaae001.j3na
Hi Ira,
Jim and I met this morning to review some additional comments I had to the report. I shoOd have
the final draft from him tomorrow to attach to the staff report and will share with the subcommittee
at that time.
Let me know if you need anything else in the meantime.
Thank you!
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitfinger
Real Property Administrator
Community Development Department
CA Broker License *01943711
Office, 949-644-3236
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660 69
From: Blank, Paul
To: jarnesbnetzerCc�aol.com
Subject: RE: DRAFr - Offshore Mooring Appraisal w/ Tered rates
Date: December 27, 2023 10:23:0D AM
Attachments: �rnaqeO01.r)no
Great work!!
Thankyou
Have a great New Year.
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Blank, Paul
jamesbnetze
Wooding, Lauren
Re: Offshore Mooring Appraisal Question
December 05, 2023 4:48:06 PF
PastedlGraphic-Ung
'=001 'the cool thing about onshore moorings is they are essentially all the same size.
Offshore moorings are of a variety of sizes (25', 30', 35', 40'...90').
Any dimensions I give you will be subject to critique as "not representative of the variety of
sizes, configtuations and conditions" actimlly out there.
That disclaimer out of the way, the biggest population of moorings out there are 40' moorings.
A typical 40' boat on one of those moorings would be 40' long x 14' wide but the mooring
takes up much more space than that.
'the distance fi-om the boat to each mooring float is approximately 10' - so the space taken up
oil the sm-face is approximately 60'. Then there is the placement of the weights on the sea
floor. The distance from the float to the weight adds at least 7' and up to as many as 15' to
each end of the mooring depending on the depth where the mooring is placed.
If you want to go with just the surface dimensions consumed by the typical mooring on
Newpol t Harbor, go with 60' x 20'.
If you want to go with tile dimensions of the entire mooring including what's below the
surface, go with 80'x 20'.
Best,
From: Woodinci, Lauren
To: JamesbnetzerC&ao1.com`
Subject: RE: DRAFT APPRAISAL - Offshore Moorings - Fair Market Rent
Date: Decern be r 20, 2023 5: 18: 00 P M
Attachments: imacieGOI.ionq
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for getting this draft �n to me before the end of the year. I will be sharing
internally and will be in touch afte� the new year with any comments or changes before we have you
finalize the report and take �t out of draft mode.
I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and get to spend time with your family
in the next few weeks!
And I look forward to catching up with you in the new year.
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Communitv Develor)ment Der)artment
On Wednesday, January 3,2024,4.56 PM, Wooding, Lauren <L Wood] ngod.newportbeachca. gox,>
wrote:
Hi Jim,
I'm going through the report and have some additional comments and questions that
I'd like to address before we publish this, since I know it will be reviewed very closely.
Do you have time tomorrow morning to review with me?
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Paul Blank
Flarboffnasber
bb—b—mb--i
70
-----uriginal Iviessage -----
From: Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
To: James Netzer (jamesbnetzer@aol.com) <jamesbnetzer@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2022 10:35 am
Subject- FW- Shore Mooring Rental Rate Increase
Hi Jim,,
Thanks for answering all of the quest -ions I submitted to you. I am reviewing them with Paul and will
let you know 'if we have any further questions.
In the meantime, can you review the email below and let me know when you have some time to
chat. I think this should be considered in our valuation,, but I th"ink it is mostly a matter of
administrative capacity. I want to get your take on 'it before I discuss further with Paul.
Thank you,
Lauren
LAUREN WOODING WHITLINGER
Communitv Develoment DeDartment
71
Howdy Jim:
Thanks for taking the meeting this morning.
Upon further inspection of that one 25' mooring in the BYC field, I noticed that an individual holds it and
therefore needs a rate set by the City.
I don't think you need to perform some extensive analysis just for that one mooring.
Please just apply the 30' rate you determine to that mooring but definitely add an entry in the report that
includes the 25' category.
Sorry for my previous inaccurate or 'incomplete statement.
IIA
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
72
On Jul 22,2020, at 1:48 PM, Cunningham, Scott
> wrote:
Removing Jim.
Hi All�
I've had two long conversations with Jim regarding the
The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appr
much different than the 2016 numbers.
Note the dates:
Scotts email — 7/22/2020
RFP 21-53 Published — 4/8/2021
2016 Mooring Appraisal.
asal results will look
TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
RFP Published: I April 8. 202�
73
Code of Professional Ethics and
Explanatory Comments
ER 3-3
0
Appraisal
Institute --
In Valuation Practice it is unethical to provide a service that is contingent upon reporting a
predetermined analysis, opinion or conclusion.
74
On March 2 nd 1 2024 Paul Blank emails a concerned resident stating he has to recuse himself from the
matter due to a conflict of interest determined by the City Attorney and City Manager.
Blank was involved in this appraisal since the beginning. Is this too little too late?
From: "Blank, PaLll" <Pl3lank@newportbeachca.gov>
Date: March 2, 2024 at 3.36:07 PM PST
To:
Subject: RE: CBRE appraisal.
The City Manager and City Attorney have determined I have a conflict of interest related to this matter and can
no longer contribute to the discussion or proceedings.
Aloha)
Paul Blank
1 NW P Harbormaster
1��W 1"�O/? Harbor
75
�ubject: Appraisal Kick -Off Call - Off -shore Moorings
Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting
St a rt:
Thu
10/26/2023
2:00
PIVI
End:
Thu
10/26/2023
3:00
PM
Recurrence: (rone)
Meeting Status: Meetng organizer
Organizer: Wooding, Laurer
Required Attendees: James Netzer; Beer, Ira; Scully, Steve, Scott Cunningham; Blank, Paul
Microsoft Teams meeting
76
Conclusion
* Why didn't Netzer make any disclosures of his affiliation with "parties
involved" in the Harbor?
Why did the City choose Netzer as the appraiser? Surely, the City Attorney
knew about the loan? Surely, the City Real Property Administrator knew
about the NAC lease agreement. So why would they choose Netzer when
there were three other proposals submitted to RFP 21-53
* Other Proposers: Lea Associates, R. P. Laurain, The Dore Group
Why did the Harbor Commission repeatedly state this was an
INDEPENDENT appraisal?
Why did the Staff, Harbormaster, and Harbor Commissioners attempt
influence and steer the Appraiser and final Appraisal?
Why should the Yacht Club Moorings care?
From:
To: Jacobs, Carol
Cc: BorstIng, Kurt; Wooding, Lauren; Kenn2y, Will1am, Jr.; Beer, Ira
Subject: Re: Newport Harbor Fair Market Rent Moonrigs
Date, September 26, 2020 8:15:59 AM
od morning!
ith the miforrnation provided by Lauren on the Yacht Club agreements, I can now sm-n up
, total discount we apply to the moorings given "no" dinghy parking. Note Jim Netzer
tifirmed the discount is $1.67/mo ($20.04/yr) per linear ft across off -shore moormigs and
% less for on -shore moorings.
I think we would al I agree that the discount should not be applied to the shore moorings and
Yacht Clubs. We'll get that corrected next round. But the real pwWse of the email is to
highlight how big of an issue dinghy parking is since the 2016 appraisal has been in effect.
In summary we discount $676,449 per year for lack of dinghy parking. This equates to
S3.38M over the last 5 years.
Off -shore Moorings: We have 24,700 linear feet. We discount these mooring rates by
$494,988/yr.
Yacht Club Moorings-. We have 5,149 linear feet. We discoLint these mooning rates by
S103,185/yr.
'Shore Moorings: We have 7,812 linear feet. We discount these mooring rates by $78,276/yr. I
I 000mr— 78
And 2 years later they came for Onshore Moorings
January 12, 2022
Agenda Item No. 7.2
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: Paul Blank, Harbormaster, (949) 270-8158,
pblank@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator,
lwooding@newportbeachca.gov, 949-644-3236
TITLE- Review of Appraisal and Discussion of Rental Rates for On -Shore
Moorinq Permits
Table 2
Recommended Onshore Mooring Rental Rates
(Monthly Rate per Linear Foot)
Recommended Rates
Current Rent
$/LF
2022 Rent
$/LF
Phase 1:
JuIV 2022
Phase 2:
January 2023
$1.58
$1.61
$10.00
$20.00
Table 3
Proposed Rate
Onshore Mooring Rent Revenues
(Annual, Estimated)
2022 Revenues (Est.)
Phase 1 Revenues (Est.)
Phase 2 Revenues (Est.)
$165,971
$1,032,480
$2,064,960
79
Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting 05/08/2024 - Public Comment
I have concern that The Harbor Commission vote of April 1 Oth, recommending offshore
mooring rent increases ranging from 300, to over 500%, suffers from deficiency.
At that meeting, Vice Chair Beer presented visual materials specific to the recommendation.
I was unable to locate those materials within the meeting agenda online, or in hardcopy
available at Chambers.
Everyone involved, should be fully aware that this is controversial, and that there's an
extremely high level of public interest. Clearly, as what was adopted on April 10 was
displayed on the big screen during the meeting, the recommendation did exist in documented
form. The public had a right to have been provided these substantive, adopted materials prior
to the meeting.
Additionally, Commissioners that night, seemed to have prepared remarks explaining their
votes in support of the recommendation. I'm also aware of an e-mail from February, stating:
"Ijust know we have the votes". The indication being, that there was prior intimate
knowledge of the recommendation, and that minds were already made up, evidencing little
use for public input.
I contend that compliance with open meeting law requirements was not met, and that the
matter on these grounds, should be re-agendized, but with complete and proper notice, to
include the recommendation itself.
I also understand, that a number of Decisionmakers for this matter, and participating parties
who are current, or former civil servants, have been intimately involved in the process to date.
Others are equity members in Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits at
those Clubs. Some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the
recommendation, are pier permit holders, paying much lower rates than mooring permitees.
These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been disclosed prior to
Commission action, and/or motivated recusal on the action.
Persons with such interest's, trying to address, or offset a substantial Harbor expense deficit
by digging into the pockets of others, rather than their own, seems the end result, and this is a
wrongful result.
The fact that 58% of mooring permitees reside outside of the City, shouldn't make it okay to
take additional advantage of them, when they're already paying more in fees than others,
including specific Decisionmakers, for use of the same State resource.
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
From: Leuna, Grace
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 05, 2024 4:21:00 PM
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trornbatore@grnail.corn>
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:10 PM
To: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
July 5, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Manager, Grace K Lueng
We seem to be at a tipping point on the issue of raisingthe offshore mooring rates in
Newport Harbor. The matter is on the agenda forTuesday, JuLy 8, 2024 Council. meeting. I
wiLL be at the meetingto carefuLLy Listen to the recommendations from the Harbor
Commission and the City CounciL's consideration of the matter.
I have personally written several, letters to the Harbor Commission, the City Council and
you of the unfairness to target and raise my mooring permit fee. I have been in the harbor
for over twenty-five years and have been a good tenant.
It now appears that the City of Newport Beach wants to raise the permit fee to $480 per
month on my forty foot mooring. That is a 3.6 times more than I am currently paying.
What is the purpose of the proposed increase?
What is the City of Newport's reasoning behind the increase?
Why are the mooring rates tied to the slip rates in Basin Marina? We certainLy do not
have the same amenities that are afforded the slip hoLders.
This is a ridiculous increase!
Why remove the transferability of the mooring permits? This is a revenue source to
the City and a fair way to rejuvenate the usage of the mooring permittees..
If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, they will
be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the
affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like me, that
will Lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under
the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.
Unless you can definitively explain the reasoning and justification for this increase to
me, I strongly encourage you to recommend the City Council to NOT vote to increase the
permit fee costs and Leave in place the current rate structure for the people they serve.
Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of
their constituents? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(cbgmail.com
From: Judis, Seirnone
To: Brown, Leilani
Cc: Harp, Aaron; Leung, Grace; Surnmerhill, Yolanda
Subject: Fwd: Tuesday 7/9/24 Council Meeting Concerning Mooring Rates
Date: July 07, 2024 10:45:54 PM
Selmone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Benzen <c.benzen@yahoo.com>
Date: July 8, 2024 at 1:41:20 AM GMT+2
To: "Wooding, Lauren" <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: "Jurjis, Seimone" <sjurJis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Tuesday 7/9/24 Council Meeting Concerning Mooring Rates
EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
pfe.
Dear Lauren and Seimone,
The City posted an Agenda packet for a hearing concerning moorings. Par for the course, with
the City of Newport Beach concerning moorings, the City's hearing was posted during the July
4 th holiday week to attempt to minimize public participation and opposition.
OLCII I YLJOLI--U ILZ) I C;1JL)1 L C11 1U OULULAULA VVI ]CIL CILLCIU1 III 11Z;1 ILO Ll lt:,y VVC11 105LA LU CILLGILA 1.
Lhis is to make sure that the Staff report and the Staff selected attachments are the only
ritten items that Staff is going to Dresent or arrange to Dresent to the Citv Council.
�I am confirming that this is all that Staff wanted to present to Council and Staff did not
ithhoLd reports or presentations to the public and mooring permittees for this hearing?
Thanks,
Chris B
From:
Sally Peterson
To:
City Clerk"s Office
Subject:
Proposed Rental Increase for Shore Moorings
Date:
July 06, 2024 3:47:19 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
afe.
Thank you for taking the time to fully consider the impact of the proposed rental
increases. As a whole, the proposed rental increases are excessive and derived by
use of incomplete data and faulty analysis. Your decision will have a lasting impact
on small boating in this bay. Take your time to do it correctly.
I am a small boater and have a shore mooring. The onshore moorings were not
included in this 2024 analysis until the final vote. At the very end of the series of
Harbor Commission meetings regarding the rent increase, without much discussion,
the concluded shore mooring rents were included using an analysis similar to that
used for the offshore mooring. However, the analysis for the onshore moorings uses
incorrect slip data:
SIZE RESTRICTION - Shore moorings are restricted to boats not larger than 18x8.
The rental comp was 20x1 0+. Offshore moorings do not have the beam restriction
that onshore moorings have. In the onshore mooring analysis, a downward
adjustment should be made for this size difference. This was not done.
USE RESTRICTION - NO ELECTRIC BOAT MOORING - The high demand for small
slips is driven by the extremely large number of Duffys+ in the Bay. There are just not
enough 20 foot slips to meet the demand for Duffys, thus driving up the rental rates.
Unfortunately, a shore mooring is not a replacement for a slip. There is no power at
a shore mooring to charge an electric boat and, at low tide, a Duffy's rudder and prop
would likely be damaged due to grounding. The use of and high rental rate for a slip
is not comparable to a shore mooring.
Thank you for rethinking the proposed rental increases. Approving the rental
increases as proposed is ill advised.
Sally Peterson
Newport Beach City Council Meeting 07/09/2024 — Public Comment Re:
Agenda Item #13 & "What is a fair market rent?":
Dear Mayor and Council,
A recent article in The Daily Pilot, covering the first "Coffee and Conversation
with the Mayor" event, indicates that pertaining to the Newport Beach Harbor
Commission's Recommendation to increase Mooring Permit rents/fees in
ranges of about 300, to over 500%, Mayor O'Neill asked an attendee "What is
fair market rent?"
Responding to that inquiry, I'd note that some Newport Beach Civil Servants,
have interpreted public comment opposing the excessive proposed mooring
rent/fee increases, as people stating that charging Fair Market Value Rent is not
necessary. I've attended numerous meetings on the matters, and do not recall
any specific remarks I've interpreted that way. A primary issue seems to be
though, that a number of City Off icials/Personnel, are defining "fair market rent",
in other than customary terms. The City Staff Report for Agenda Item 13 tonight,
incorrectly states that mooring fields are "used for docking boats". I take this as
further indication, that a number of persons involved with policy, continue to not
understand the substantial differences between docking; mooring; anchoring;
berthing; or being in a slip.
The California State Lands Commission (Hereafter "SLC"), calculates annual
rental rates for the lease of State tide and submerged lands approximately
every 5 years, the last time being about two years ago, in June of 2022. Their
current Category 1 Benchmark rate for Southern California, is .451 cents per
square foot per year. Newport Beach data was used in determining that rate.
Associated SLC Staff Report 39, for purposes of comparing commercial
marinas to buoys/mooring poles states:
"These facilities offer many of the same amenities as a commercial
marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the
loading and unloading of passengers and equipment".
Moorings in Newport Harbor, are clearly lacking in the amenities of docking,
and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. A lack of onshore
parking, access to utilities and services, and dinghy/tender storage have also
been cited as impediments Mooring Permitees face in Newport. Additionally,
while Mooring Permittees are prohibited by Code from subletting their Mooring
Permits, Residential Pier Permittees are allowed to sublet their dock space. And
interestingly, the City Codified that it may sublet permitted moorings, with the
City keeping all of the proceeds. Mooring Permitees are also required to add
The City as insureds to their vessel policies, providing the City millions of dollars
of free coverage. Apparently, Residential Pier Permittees are not held to this
standard. And yet with the various challenges faced by Mooring Permitees, and
the much higher level of imposed City restriction, this group pays higher
rent/fee amounts.
SLC Staff Report 39 uses the words "fair"; "equitable"; "reasonable";
66 consistent"; and "appropriate", to describe their current Benchmark rate. This
means that the current rate of .451 cents per square foot per year, is what the
State, with vast levels of knowledge and experience in such things, has
determined to be "fair". The formula The State used to set that rate, is clearly
outlined (SLC Staff Report 39, as Attachment A).
A Fee Schedule from The City of Newport Beach website, indicates that
Residential Piers, aka docks over State owned, City managed tide/submerged
lands adjacent to residential properties, incur annual rental fees of .56 cents per
square foot per year. Various City Resolutions setting past and present fees for
these Residential Pier Permits in Newport, for use of the same lands as
Mooring Permitees, describe those rates as "fair market value rent". That
being the case, The City's current Residential Pier Permit rate of .56 cents per
square foot, must be considered to be fair.
As a holder of a 40' Mooring Permit, and noting that 40' Permits are said to be
the most common in Newport, I currently pay about 239% more in fees for a
space to have a boat, than does a Residential Pier Permitee. And noteworthy, is
that Residential Pier Permit fees, are not assessed on the physical space the
boats at those piers occupy. (Please see attached Exhibit B).
An April 9, 2024 letter from The SLC addresses this:
"Staff also observes a significant disparity between the City's residential
pier rates and mooring rates. In addition to reassessing mooring rates,
staff believes it is an opportune time for the City to also reassess its
residential pier rates to ensure these rates refiect fair market value
consistent with the City's granting statutes and fiduciary duties.
Charging less than fair market rates for the use and occupation of
granted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift of public
funds and a violation of the City's fiduciary duties to the state. "
Coincidentally, or ironically, Residential Pier Permit fees are another Agenda
Item for tonight's meeting. In spite of The SLC noting that now is the time to
address "significant" rate disparity, it appears from City Agenda materials, that
the rate will increase by an insignificant 1 cent per square foot per year. Will
Mayor and Council hold that assessing much lower fees to Harbor
Commissioners; Electeds; and others, for the space their piers/docks encumber
over granted sovereign lands, constitutes those parties paying "fair market
rent"? Will Mayor and Council conclude that the fee free boat storage at these
Residential spaces, is not an unconstitutional gift? These determinations
occurring during the same meeting that Mayor and Council consider increasing
Mooring Permit Rates/Fees by hundreds of percentages, is very troubling.
A 2024 Appraisal Report from highly regarded firm CBRE, determined fair
annual rent amounts for offshore moorings here, closely in line with what they
are presently (That Report is included within Attachment J, of tonight's Agenda
Item 13 materials). The City commissioned Netzer and Associates Appraisal
Report of 12/26/2023 on the other hand, concluded that Offshore Mooring rents
should increase exponentially. Netzer's conclusions, appear based on
inappropriate/flawed methodology; comparisons to dry -land real properties; for -
profit Marina slips; etc.; etc. These do not so closely compare to moorings over
generally undevelopable land/water, as is implied. Netzer materials also
evidence some discrepancy about how many offshore mooring fields, and how
many public docks exist in Newport Harbor, and contradict a 2016
determination made by the very same firm (Discussed in more detail below). In
memos included with the 03/18/2024 Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Special Meeting Agenda, Mr. Netzer seems to try and explain away
contradictions between himself in 2016 and 2023, and himself in 2023, and
CBRE in 2024.These memos have only raised numerous, additional
questions/concerns.
Information is also available, indicating that Offshore Mooring rents/fees in
Newport Beach, are presently higher, sometimes significantly so, than those in
other areas of the State (Attachment C).
Some have tried to use the City's new Mooring License Program to rationalize
fee increases for Mooring Permits. Under the Program though, the City
maintains the mooring tackle. In contrast, individual Mooring Permitees incur
that not insignificant expense themselves.
And near 100 moorings sit unoccupied in Newport Harbor on any given day.
This level of vacancy, is partly due to the fact that the overnight sublet price set
by the City, pencils out to be near the cost of a fully appointed marina slip. The
over -pricing of these empty moorings, creates a false scarcity, which in turn,
serves to drive up the price which can be obtained for the very limited number of
City held Mooring Licenses. Moreover, the fact that 40' moorings are the most
common, and that in the vicinity of 20 applications were received for the single
40' Mooring License the City offered, also contributes to pricing pressure. The
sole 30' Mooring License, receiving a similar number of applicants, mirrors a
limited supply, high demand pricing effect, which cannot rationally be used to
determine "fair market rent".
It would be errant, wrongful, and harmful, for the City to ignore multiple sources
of data, that indicate with consistency, what fair market rent is. It would be
errant, wrongful, and harmful, for the City to knowingly chose to rely on an
outlier Appraisal Report, which appears to have been influenced and crafted, by
individuals with financial interests. Mayor and Council should not refuse to
accept that the current SLC Benchmark rate; The City's own Residential Pier
Permit fee; The CBRE Offshore Mooring Appraisal Report values; and the lower
fees for moorings in other areas of the State, establish "fair market rent".
In effort to rationalize Newport's current rent/fee disparity being increasing even
further, the City has pretty consistently used about 5 points. Although a
substantial amount of materials have been submitted refuting those points,
given the urgency of the matter, and the amount of time required to analyze the
materials, I will here, provide a synopsis:
The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"Mooring rates in Newport have been too lowfior too long. "
Rebuttal: As noted, mooring rates in Newport Beach, are multiple times higher
than the current State Lands Commission (Hereafter SLC) Category 1
Benchmark Rate applicable to tide/submerged lands in Orange County (.45.1
cents per square foot per year); they are multiple times higher than the City's
residential pier/dock permit rate of about .56 cents per square foot per year;
they are higher than those for mooring permits in other areas of the State; they
are closely in -line with rates determined though a recent appraisal, by highly
regarded firm CBRE.
The City of Newport Beach will say that:
"...the 2006-0 7 Grand Jury report included a recommendation to the City
to establish a regularly scheduled independent appraisalfor thefair market
value of mooring permitfees based on a percentage of the cost of a slip... "
Rebuttal: The Grand Jury report did not recommend any percentage of
comparison between a slip and a mooring. The City could use 1 % or 3%, just as
arbitrarily as 24%, 32%, or 34%. Moorings and slips vary greatly in impediments
of use, convenience, amenities, security, etc., etc. The Grand Jury may not
have known this. Again, many unfamiliar with boating, are not fully aware of the
distinctions between slips; moorings; anchorages. Additionally, the City, in
response to Grand Jury report findings, addressed errant information within the
report, disagreed partially with five findings, clarified another, and indicated
one recommendation would not be implemented. The Grand Jury report
appears to have been formulated by laypersons, unfamiliar with the subject
matter, which understandably, contributed to an imprecise document.
The City of Newport Beach correctly indicates that:
"Charging less thanfair market ratesfor the use and occupation ofgranted
sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift ofpublic funds... "
Rebuttal: As noted above, Mooring Permit Holders in Newport Beach currently
pay much more in rents/fees, than do other users of the same State resource.
The City's contention that Mooring Permittees are somehow paying "less than
fair market rates", and are being gifted something, is disingenuous at best.
The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"the subject rates have only been adjusted once over the past 28 years "
Rebuttal: This is patently false. There have been multiple adjustments, as
recently as January 2024, based on the City's well established, and broadly
accepted and used practice of annual CPI based adjustments.
The City of Newport Beach indicates that:
"...the City is required to obtain fair market rent in exchangefor exclusive
use, fair market value is what is required by law, including
the City's municipal code... "
Rebuttal: Again, Mooring permit holders in Newport Beach pay multiples more
in rents/fees for their water only permits, than do residential land -attached, walk-
on City permitted piers/docks. Moreover, boats on Moorings do not occupy the
full square footage area that fees are assessed on. On the other hand, the City
does not generally assess rents/fees for the square footage area that boats at
piers/docks occupy, and only assesses fees based upon the square footage
calculation of the physical footprint of the pier/dock. Boats at residential
piers/docks, consequently, pay nothing for the sovereign land they occupy,
while mooring permitees pay fees on more space than they actually occupy.
The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"The California State Lands Commission provided a written response
concerning the methodology used in the Netzer appraisal which concluded
that the approach, methodologies and its recommendations are reasonable.
Rebuttal: While there's an element of truth to the City's contention, it neglects
to disclose that The SLC, in the very same written response, also said:
"...there are some areas where the appraisal would benefitfrom
clarification or revision. "
t i
, staff disagrees that residential land values should be used as a basisfor
valuing the offshore moorings, because the moorings'use is not connected
with the residential use. "
", the appraisal references proposed mooring rate increases by the San
Diego Unified Port District, another trustee of sovereign land, and states
that they were approved by the State Lands Commission. Just like in Newport
Bay, the State Lands Commission does not have review or approval authority
over the San Diego Unified Port District's mooring rates and therefore did
not approve the Port's mooring rate increases. "
", the appraisal would benefitfrom a more thorough discussion of the
moorings and marinas used in its comparison analysis, including a more
detailed explanation of the amenities, servi . ces, ownership and maintenance
of tackle, and otherfactors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's
analysis of how to reconcile those differences. "
", the appraisal would benefitfrom clearer explanations of how calculations
were performed. For example, the appraisal uses an average marina slip
rate of $50.55for Newport Bay and concludes that a 30% marina -to -slip
ratio is a ropriate. In both cases the appraisal provides the data the
conclusions are based on but does notprovide an explicit calculation or
analysisfor how each conclusion was reachedfrom the data. "
"The City could also adopt different rates if additional information shows
that the recommendations should be modified. "
"Staff also observes a significant disparity between the City's residentialpier
rates and mooring rates. In addition to reassessing mooring rates, staff
believes it is an opportune timefor the City to also reassess its residential
pier rates to ensure these rates reflectfair market value consistent with the
City's granting statutes andfiduciary duties. "
The Netzer Appraisal Report that the City had State Lands review, and which
State Lands deemed "reasonable" in letter form on April 9, 2024, has strong
indications of being much less than "Independent" (Addressed below).
Considering this, along with the many other shortcomings The SLC letter noted
with the appraisal, I contend that Mayor and Council's reliance on it is not
"reasonable".
Considerations related to Process:
Newport Beach's current Harbormaster, a termed -out Harbor Commissioner,
contributed to the rent/fee increase recommendation until March of 2024, when
he recused himself stating: "As a mooring permittee, these discussions may
affect mefinancially. "
Recusal at that late date, does not remedy prior action s/co ntri buti ons during
the process. The Harbormaster also appears to have been involved in the City's
new Mooring License Program, and in what I will refer to, as the Mooring Field
C Realignment/Reconfig u ration Plan. As a result, each process has been
irretrievably damaged. This is especially concerning, given that the City, City
Attorney, and Harbormaster, entered into a prior agreement, mandating that the
Harbormaster:
"does notparticipate in discussions or the development of recommendations
related to use orfinancial arrangements associated with offshore moorings "
and "reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related
to offshore mooringpermits are made by Real Property Administration
staff" (Attachment D)
Do Mayor and Council conclude that the City Attorney; select City staff/
personnel; The Harbormaster, et al., all simply forgot about this agreement?
Or, contend that the parties knowingly disregarded it? Is either scenario
acceptable? And will sworn depositions be the only way to make factual
determinations on these breaches?
Other parties contributing to the Mooring Recommendation (s), and some voting
to support it, also appear to be affected financially. Those who are equity
members in yacht clubs, and those subject to the City's Residential Pier/dock
Permit Fees, will logically benefit from their rates being kept much lower, and
not having fees assessed on the space their boats at Residential Piers occupy.
And I hope by now, that you are all fully aware of the difficulty encountered in
determining that Mooring Permits held/managed under the Yacht Clubs and
Lido Isle Community Association, would be insulated from fee increases under
the recent Harbor Commission Recommendation. Again, the process has been
irretrievably damaged by contributions and actions of persons appearing to
receive direct benefit, as a consequence of their contributions and actions.
Timelines related to various Netzer Appraisal Reports, and other interactions
with The City, have also raised serious concern among many. Addressing
materials sourced from various Public Records Requests, some of which I've
seen presented at local City, and Yacht Club meetings:
The timing of Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham's e-mail
of July 22, 2020, as related to the subsequent Mooring Appraisal RFP, is quite
concerning. The RFP for the Appraisal wasn't even "Posted" by the City, until
April of the following year, and "Awarded on August 3, 2021 ", after four firms
had submitted bids. (Attachment E)
Harbor Commissioner Cunningham, seemingly knowing nearly a year in
advance, that James B. "Jim" Netzer would be the Appraiser selected, and
knowing from "two long conversations with Jim" prior to his selection, that the
resulting appraisal would deviate substantially from Mr. Netzer's January 6,
2016 Appraisal, which stated:
"The Ratio analysis attempts to estimate the market rentfor moorings as
compared to the rentfor similar slip spaces in the same marina or harbor.
As shown in the analysis, the ratio can vary dramatically (25% to 92%)
and, while a potential renter could take this into consideration (cost of a
slip v. cost of a mooring), it is notjudged to be a reliable measure of Fair
Market Rent."
tends towards indication of a rigged selection process, and a curated appraisal.
Commissioner Cunningham, also took it upon himself to e-mail the chosen
Appraiser online listings of Mooring Permits purportedly for sale. This looks to
me, like further effort to influence the Appraisal. I do not believe that
Commissioner Cunningham is "Real Property Administration staff'.
And although boats on shore moorings are restricted to no more than 8'wide,
and 18' long, other communications indicate that Mr. Netzer tells the
Harbormaster that he uses a length of 36' long for his calculations. The
Harbormaster, subsequent to having entered into that agreement that he ""does
notparticipate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use
orfinancial arrangements associated with offshore moorings", responds in kind,
with likewise inflated numbers, writing that a boat on a 40' Mooring would
typically be 14' wide, and 40' long (Note: Boats with rectangular footprints are
very uncommon). The Harbormaster then opines, that the actual square footage
of Tide/Submerged lands a mooring would encumber, could be 20'x 60', or 20'
x 80'.
Important to understand, is that boats on moorings do not continually occupy
any such amount of space, and that other Tide/Submerged land users regularly
transition through, and use much of that supposed mooring space for their
activities. The City, and parties holding Residential Pier/Dock Permits on the
other hand, occupy a generally fixed space, and often proclaim that the spaces
they use over public lands, are not to be used by anyone else. (Attachment F)
Other e-mails show the Harbormaster telling the Appraiser to price a 25'
Mooring at the 30' rate. Similarly, the Phase -in documents the City provided
State Lands, applies the rate for 20', well-appointed marina slips at the City's
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina ($32.23 per If), to the 18', challenging to use,
permitted shore moorings. An apparent pattern of basing conclusions on
calculations using more space than is actually encumbered by moored
vessels, in conjunction with applying higher fee rates to lower tier permits,
unrealistically inflates the resultant prices.
And did State Lands know, that in early October of 2023, Jim Netzer, acting for
The Newport Aquatic Center (Hereafter NAC) was involved in negotiating from
the City, a 3 to 5 decade long, "Amended and Restarted" zero fee ground lease,
for acres of prime, waterfront sovereign land? And that the City waived its
policy F-7 requirement, that full fair market value be obtained under said lease?
(Mr. Netzer, along with the Harbormaster's brother, are/were Board Members of
the NAC. Mr. Netzer's family members, also have close ties with the NAC)
Just a couple of weeks subsequent to this no fee lease, a Microsoft Teams
meeting, captioned "Appraisal Kick -Off Call Off -shore Moorings" was arranged.
City personnel, including the Harbormaster and Commissioner Cunningham,
as well as the Appraiser, were to participate. The timing of the no -cost lease, so
closely coinciding with the kick-off for an Appraisal Report that Harbor
Commissioner Cunningham said would quote — unquote "look much different",
along with Mr. Netzer's reversal of his 2016 position that a slip to mooring ratio
is not judged a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent, and the involvement of
multiple parties with financial interests, who thus, should not have even been
involved, raises numerous, serious concerns, quid pro quo being one. And if
events in the timeline do not rise to a level of impropriety, I think they certainly
rise to the level of the appearance of impropriety. Mayor and Council should
neither condone, nor endorse this.
And the revelation via City agenda materials, that were posted over a major
holiday weekend, where multiple news outlets have reported record numbers of
people travelling, and being away from home, that the Mooring Fee Increase
Recommendation, has now morphed into City proposals to phase out Live -
aboard Permits; and/or phase out Permit transferability; and/or have the City
confiscate all mooring permits at no cost, comes across as very underhanded. It
harkens back to a Netzer Appraisal Report, being dated December 26, 2023,
between two other major holidays. If this tact of holiday timing is intentional
strategy, I would question the ethics of it. It it's merely coincidence, I would
question the lack of insight into the optics of City conduct it can create among
members of the public and media.
Until this most recent misguided, and deceptive Harbor Commission rate
increase Recommendation was begun, Mooring Permitees, for use of the same
State resource, were willingly paying multiples times more in rates than
Residential Pier Permitees. Oftentimes, the moorings and piers are not even
very distant from one another. It is difficult to extract fairness from this disparity,
but it was being accepted. As more information has come to light during the
progression of the Recommendation though, the level of unfairness has become
more and more pronounced and concerning, to Permitees and State agencies.
How could Harbor Commissioner Vice Chair Ira Beer, in good conscience,
have repeatedly implied that Mooring Permittees, who are paying more in fees,
might be beneficiaries of unconstitutional gifts of the use of State lands, while at
the same time, Decisionmakers, and some seated with him on the dais, are
paying no fees for the actual space their vessels occupy? How could have each
Harbor Commissioner, in good conscience, have ethically endorsed increasing
the rate disparity and discrimination even further?
And in the same vein, how can The Harbor Commission, some of whom are
equity members in Newport Yacht Clubs, think that it's "fair" to not subject
themselves or their peer's Clubs, and The Lido Isle Community Association, to
the same excessive fee increases they propose for Mooring Permittees
unaffiliated with these exclusive entities?
When I had previously remarked in Council Chambers, about a dislike of
hypocrisy, I had not then realized to what levels that hypocrisy extended with
some here. Policyrnakers and Decisionmakers, crafting scenarios wherein they,
their peers, associates, friends and/or neighbors benefit from lower rents/fees,
and/or are insulated from rent/fee increases, to me, is clearly wrongful and
harmful. Now having a better idea of the level of hypocrisy, greed, and self-
interest, I contemplate Mayor and Council's recent closed sessions to discuss
"SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", and remark.... Ya think?!?!?!?!?
Sincerely, and apologetically,
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
Public Comment
Attachment A:
California State Lands
Commission Staff
Report:
21 pgs.
Meeting Date: 06/23/22
Work Order Number: W27256
Staff: K. Foster
Staff Report 39
PARTY:
California State Lands Commission
PROPOSED ACTION:
Approve the 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark rental rate and the
Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rate.
LAND TYPE AND LOCATION:
Sovereign land in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
AUTHORITY:
Public Resources Code sections 6005, 6216, 6301, 6501.1, 6503, 6503.5, and 6505.5;
California Code of Regulations, title 2, sections 2000 and 2003.
The California Constitution specifically prohibits the Legislature from making or
authorizing any gift of public money or thing of value to any individual,
municipality, or corporation (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 6). A "thing of value" includes
the use of State-owned land for private benefit.
The Commission has broad discretion in all aspects of leasing state lands, including
the method or amount of rent that is most appropriate, and how rent should be
adjusted during the term. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 6501.1, 6503, 6503.5; Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 2, §§ 2000, 2003.) Rents must be in the best interests of the State, and may
be based on one or more of the following methods, including, but not limited to:
0 9 percent of the appraised value of the leased land.
0 A percentage of annual gross income, where the percentage is based on an
analysis of the market for like uses and other relevant factors.
0 A comparison to rents for other similar land or facilities.
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
• Benchmarks for regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, with
benchmark rental rates to be based on analysis of similar or substitute facilities in
the local area.
• Other such methods or information that are based on commonly accepted
appraisal practices and principles; and for leases for recreational piers or buoys,
rent shall be based on local conditions and local fair annual rental values. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6503, 6503.5.)
The Commission may consider the amount of rent the State would receive under
various rental methods, and whether relevant, reliable, and comparable data are
available concerning the value of the leased land in determining which rent
method should apply. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (d) (1), (2).)
PUBLIc TRUST AND STATE'S BEST INTERESTS:
Benchmarks are used to establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic
regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, mostly private recreational
improvements within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003,
subd. (a) (5).) The use of benchmarks improves the consistency, transparency, and
efficiency in how the Commission establishes rent for large numbers of similar
leases, saving time, resources, and money for both the applicant and the State.
Periodic benchmark adjustments assures that the people of the State are fairly
compensated according to current market rates for the private use of State-owned
land, consistent with the California Constitution. Generally, staff recommends
updates to the benchmarks every 5 years.
The Commission has two types of benchmarks for rental rates:
• Category 1, which is generally applied to private docks, piers, and buoys.
• Category 2, which is generally applied to cantilevered decks, sundecks, or other
non -water dependent uses.
This staff report addresses the Category 1 benchmark for the Southern California
coastal region for Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, and the
Category 2 benchmark for Huntington Harbour recreational use leases that include
cantilevered decks.
METHODOLOGY:
The Commission has been using the Category I Southern California benchmark
since the early 1980s and the Category 2 Huntington Harbour benchmark since
2004. Both benchmarks were last updated in October 2016, when the Category 1
rate was set at $0.374 per square foot, and the Category 2 rate was set at $31.50
per square foot.
2
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
CATEGORY I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BENCHMARK
Leases are issued by the Commission for private recreational facilities such as
docks, piers, and buoys/mooring poles. These facilities offer many of the same
amenities as a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring
of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. In this
manner, these privately owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial
marina berth/buoy. Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair
return and a fair rental value is based on what an individual would pay for a similar
substitute site in a commercial marina (principle of substitution). Since a
Commission -leased site for a privately -owned pier or dock is a reasonable substitute
for a marina berth, a lessee occupying state land should pay a similar rate for the
leased site as the state would receive for leasing the land to a commercial marina.
The current methodology for setting rent for berthing vessels at docks and piers
occupying state-owned sovereign land is based on the principle of substitution
described above.
The first step in setting a Category 1 berthing rate benchmark is to survey local
marinas to determine their rental rates. Marinas usually rent their berths on a per -
linear -foot basis, based on the length of the berth or vessel. For benchmark
purposes, the average surveyed rental rate is used. The rate is multiplied by the
average or typical berth length as indicated in the survey data. Based on these
inputs, the annual gross income is calculated. For Category 1 benchmarks, the
State's rent is based on a 5 percent rate of return of this annual gross income,
which represents a comparable fair market compensation rate for the use of State-
owned sovereign land. The State's rent is then converted to a per -square -foot basis
using a table calculated by the California State Parks Division of Boating and
Waterways 2005 publication titled "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina
Berthing Facilities" (DBW berthing publication). This publication provides formulas
and tables for calculating the submerged land area needed to accommodate
various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other variables, the formulas
account for the berth length, berth layout (single or double), and the type of vessel
(powerboat or sailboat). The publication can be requested from the Department of
Boating and Waterways (http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/pages/28702/files/GuideO5.pdf).
The Southern California Benchmark appraisal survey, attached as Exhibit A, consists
of 42 marinas located in the four counties covered by the benchmark. The survey
found that the average berth/slip size in the coverage area is approximately 37
linear feet. A 37-foot length was also used in the 2016 benchmark. Staff believes
that marina layouts have not changed significantly since the last benchmark.
Berthing rates are reported on a per -linear -foot basis. The berthing rate, based on
survey data collected within the coverage area, ranged from $11.90 to $65.86 per
3
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
linear foot with an average of $23.40 per linear foot. The benchmark rental rate for
berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth length by the average rental
rate. This product is then multiplied by 12 months to arrive at the gross annual
income. The gross annual income is then multiplied by 5 percent to arrive at the
income attributable to the submerged land. That amount is then converted to a
per square foot basis for rent -setting purposes using the DBW berthing publication
described above. The submerged land area used in this benchmark analysis is
based on a double berth layout, which represents the typical and most
economically efficient marina berth layout in the area and represents an average
of the powerboat and sailboat areas.
From DBW berthing publication data, a submerged area of 1, 153 square feet is
needed to accommodate the 37-foot average slip length. Taking all the previously
described inputs into account, the rental rate for the proposed Southern California
Benchmark is calculated as follows:
$10,389.60/berth/year x 5 percent of gross income = $519.48
$519.48 - 1,153 square feet = $0.451 /square foot
Proposed Category I Southern California Benchmark Rental Rate = $0.451 per
square foot
The 2016 Benchmark was set at $0.374 per square foot. As proposed, the new
benchmark rate of $0.451 per square foot represents an overall increase of just
under 8 cents ($0.077) per square foot.
Impact Area:
The impact area is an additional area, beyond the physical footprint of a structure,
where a lessee seeks authorization to conduct activities. For recreational structures
used for the docking and mooring of boats within the benchmark's coverage area,
the impact area is generally a nine -foot -wide strip along the mooring areas or
under a boat lift. In Huntington Harbour, it is generally the area between the
bulkhead and the pierhead line that is not covered by the dock, because of the
occupation of the improvements, these are areas that are generally viewed by the
public as private and where the lessee generally enjoys exclusive use. Accordingly,
these areas are included in a lease and rent is charged thereon. The Commission's
leasing regulations explicitly allow for this. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (e)
(2)).
CATEGORY 2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BENCHMARK
Category 2 benchmarks are based on nearby upland land values because the
improvements (cantilevered decks, sundecks, or certain other non -water
M
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
dependent encroachments) represent an extension of the private backyard of the
upland residence —a purpose unrelated to the docking and mooring of boats.
Commission appraisal staff uses the following general process to establish and
update a Category 2 benchmark. First, staff conducts research to identify recent
nearby upland property sales. The initial research seeks to identify land value only
because the property being leased is the underlying sovereign land, as well as the
area above the sovereign land, and not the privately -owned improvements. If
vacant land sales are not available, then the assessed improvement values are
subtracted from sales price of improved properties to reflect the land value of the
sale property. Next, staff analyzes the sales data and determines a per -square -foot
value representative of the area. The benchmark is calculated by applying a 9
percent annual rate of return to the appraised value of the leased land pursuant to
title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 2003, subdivision (a) (1).
The Category 2 benchmark may then be discounted to reflect that the sovereign
land to be leased may not have the same utility or intensity of use as the upland
properties from which the data were drawn, due to topography or other physical
characteristics, the nature of the sovereign land use, certain legal constraints, or
the upland owner's decision, but nevertheless still contributes to the value of the
upland property.
Using the methodology described above, Commission appraisal staff researched
19 home sales adjoining sovereign land along the Main and Midway Channels
within Huntington Harbour. The sales occurred between February 2018 and
December 2021, with a sales range of $1,175,000 to $6,650,000 and a
corresponding land value range of $110 to $697 per square foot. The concluded
average land value based on these sales figures is $458 per square foot. Taking all
the previously described inputs into account, the proposed undiscounted rental
rate for the Huntington Harbour Benchmark is calculated as follows:
$458 x 9% = $41.22 per square foot
Proposed Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark Rental Rate = $41.22 per
square foot
The 2016 Benchmark was set at $31.50 per square foot. As proposed, the new
benchmark rate of $41.22 per square foot represents an increase of $9.72 per
square foot.
The undiscounted rate applies to features such as enclosed cantilevered decks
because, unlike an open deck, an enclosed deck has the full capacity to be
utilized as residential living space, and thus should be given no reduction in utility or
intensity of use as compared to the upland land value. For features such as an
5
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
unenclosed cantilevered deck, Commission staff recommends the application of a
discount of up to 75 percent to reflect the intensity of use of the sovereign lands
occupied. This approach is consistent with how staff applies discounts for similar
facilities throughout the state.
CONCLUSION:
Staff's methodologies for setting the proposed Category I Southern California and
Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rates are consistent with the
methodology used for the Commission's other similar benchmarks, as well as all the
relevant statutes and regulations that govern the Commission's rent -setting
authority. Staff's recommended benchmark rates represent a fair and equitable
rate for each type of use based on the most current and relevant data available.
Approval of the new benchmark rental rates will not result in a change in the use
of, or substantially interfere with or impact Public Trust resources. Staff believes that
each benchmark provides a reasonable and consistent method for determining
rents in their geographic coverage areas and are in the best interests of the State.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:
1. In 2011, Chapter 585, Statutes of 2011 became law and repealed Public
Resources Code section 6503.5 that had allowed rent-free use of state land by
certain private parties for their recreational piers. It replaced the former section
with a new section 6503.5 which provides that the Commission "shall charge
rent for a private recreational pier constructed on state lands."
2. In 2014, the Commission adopted amendments to Sections 1900, 2002, and 2003
under articles 1 and 2 of title 2, division 3, chapter 1 of the California Code of
Regulations that included regulations on rent -setting methods approving the use
of benchmarks and the application of the Consumer Price Index (Item 5,
January 23, 2014).
3. This action is consistent with Goal 4 of the Commission's Strategic Plan "Meeting
Evolving Public Trust Needs," Section 3 - "Maintain fiscal integrity through
transparency, accountability, and: a. Efficient and effective management of
the revenue -generation portfolio." This action is also consistent with Goal 6
"Committing to Collaborative Leadership," Section 2 - Advance innovation and
create clarity of direction by offering continual, robust opportunities for
stakeholder and public engagement, and institutionalizing this relationship
building so that the process and relationships live through the Commission and
not just through individual staff members or leaders.
M
Staff Report 39 (Continued)
4. Approval of the 2022 Category I Southern California and Category 2 Huntington
Harbour Benchmark rental rates is not a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act because it is an administrative action that will not
result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
Authority: Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of
Regulations, title 14, section 15378, subdivision (b) (5).
EXHIBITS:
A. 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark Appraisal
B. 2022 Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark Appraisal
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Commission:
PUBLIc TRUST AND STATE'S BEST INTERESTS:
Find that approval of the benchmarks will not result in a change in the use of, or
impacts to, Public Trust resources; is consistent with the common law Public Trust
Doctrine; and is in the best interests of the State.
AUTHORIZATION:
1. Approve the 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark rental rate of
$0.451 per square foot, effective June 23, 2022.
2. Approve the 2022 Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rate of
$41.22 per square foot, effective June 23, 2022.
VA
Exhibit A
State of California
Memorandum
State Lands Commission
Date: May 6, 2022
To: Brian Bugsch, Chief
Land Management Division
Grace Kato, Assistant Chief
Land Management Division
From: Chaun Wong
Associate Property Appraiser
Land Management Division
Subject: Southern California Category 1 Benchmark 2022
Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego Counties
The Southern California Category 1 Benchmark was last updated by staff of the California
State Lands Commission (Commission) in 2016. The current update follows essentially
the same methodology as used in the prior benchmark. Reference is made to the 2016
study for additional background material that may be needed for the reader to more fully
understand what the benchmark is used for and how it is set.
The recommended benchmark is summarized in the following table with the 2016
benchmark.
Table 1. Southern California Benchmark Summary
Benchmark Date
Rental Rate (Per Sq. Ft.)
2016
$0.374
2022
$0.451
An appraisal is the act or process of developing an opinion of value that must be
numerically expressed as a specific amount, as a range of numbers, or as a relationship
to a previous value opinion or numerical benchmark. This report constitutes an
appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
(USPAP). Accordingly, this appraisal has been performed and the report has been
prepared in substantial compliance with USPAP. The compiled research, analyses, and
conclusions presented in this appraisal represent a correlation of market rents into
benchmark rental rates for private recreational facilities (e.g., docks and piers) located
on Southern California. The benchmark is intended to be used by Commission staff for
rent setting purposes.
Benchmarks establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with
concentrations of similar facilities within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5).) For proposed leases involving certain types of
Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
improvements or uses in regions where benchmarks have been approved, staff will
recommend an annual rent based on the applicable benchmark and the lease area.
Benchmark rental rates are based on an analysis of similar uses or substitute facilities
in the local area. Generally, staff recommends updates to the benchmarks every 5
years. The use of benchmarks improves consistency and transparency throughout a
geographic region, improves staff efficiency in setting and adjusting rent for large
numbers of leases, and saves time and money for both the applicant and the State.
Introduction
Leases are issued by the California State Lands Commission for private recreational
facilities — such as docks and piers — located on sovereign lands. These facilities offer a
substitute for the essential functions of a commercial marina, such as a place for the
docking and mooring of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and
equipment. In a market where there is significantly more demand than supply, these
private structures afford the upland owners guaranteed access to mooring facilitates
that they may not otherwise be able to obtain from commercial marinas. In this manner,
these privately -owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial marina slip.
Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair rental value in this
analysis is based on what an individual would pay for a similar substitute site in a
commercial marina.
Since a Comm ission-leased site for a privately -owned pier or dock substitutes for the
essential functions of a marina slip, a lessee of the state land should pay a similar
amount for the leased site as the state would receive for leasing the land to a
commercial marina.
Scope
The scope of the research included the following-
• Identifying marinas with boat slips in the Southern California area.
• Surveying the number and type of moorings at marinas (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 (last updated July 2005) from the State Department of Boating and
Waterways to determine the amount of submerged land area necessary to
accommodate a given mooring size.
• Calculating the annual rental rate(s) using the above information and State
valuation guidelines.
There are estimated to be 118 total marinas in the Southern California area. In
statistics, for very large populations, a random sampling method provides the best
chance of an unbiased representative sample. Random marinas throughout the regions
were contacted during the course of the survey. Marinas were contacted via phone
California State Lands Commission 2
Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
and/or email. Some marina operators did not want to participate in the survey. Some
marina operators did not provide a clear breakdown of their berthing rental rates and/or
berth sizes. Other marinas contacted during the course of the survey do not rent their
berths on a long-term basis. As of April 11, 2022, a total of 42 marinas responded to the
survey. Each of these marinas cooperated to varying degrees and provided relevant
information for study purposes. A deliberate effort was made to make the samples
representative of each target population. While not comprehensive, this survey is
believed to be representative of the total marinas within each study area.
Methodolo
In order to determine the benchmark rent for a leased area (pier, dock, etc.), it is
necessary to determine the income that can typically be generated by a commercial
marina; the area occupied by the average or typical marina slip in a well -designed
marina; and the rent for that average or typical sized boat. An annual rate of return is
then applied to the product of the above.
The Commission typically charges 5 percent of gross income for boat berthing for sites
leased to commercial marina operators.
Berth / Sho Rent
The Southern California Benchmark consists of 42 marinas located in Ventura, Los
Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). For purposes of
this benchmark, the boundaries of the Southern California region are generally defined
as the Ventura / Los Angeles County lines to the north, the Los Angeles / Orange / San
Diego County lines to the east, the San Diego County line to the south, and the Pacific
Coast of Ventura / Los Angeles / Orange / San Diego Counties to the west.
The average berth size of the marinas surveyed in the Southern California region is
approximately 37 linear feet. Similarly, a 37-foot length was also used in the 2016
Southern California Benchmark.
The responding marinas reported a total of 14,235 slips, or an average of 339 slips per
marina. The average occupancy was reported at 96.3%, a moderate increase from the
88.5% reported in 2016.
Berthing rates are reported on a per linear foot basis. For all of the areas listed above,
the berthing rate, based on data collected, ranged from $11.90 to $65.86 per linear foot.
The lower rents were generally found in marinas located in Oxnard and City of Ventura
of Ventura County-, Marina del Rey and Wilmington of Los Angeles County-, and City of
San Diego of San Diego County. The higher rents were generally found in marinas
located in Newport Beach of Orange County. The average rent overall is $23.40 per
linear foot. This represents a 20.62% increase over the $19.40 per linear foot used in
the 2016 Benchmark.
California State Lands Commission 3
Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
The benchmark rental rate for berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth
length by the average monthly rental rate. This product is then multiplied by 12 months
to arrive at the gross annual income. The gross annual income is multiplied by 5% to
get the income attributable to the submerged land. The income attributable to the
submerged land is then divided by the amount of submerged land needed to
accommodate the average berth length within a marina.
The submerged land area needed to accommodate an average berth is found in a
publication entitled "Layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft and Berthing
Facilities" by the California Department of Boating and Waterways last updated in 2005.
This publication provides formulas and tables for calculating the submerged land area
needed to accommodate various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other
variables, the formulas take into account the berth length, berth layout (single vs.
double), and the type of vessel (powerboat vs. sailboat). The submerged land area used
in this benchmark analysis is based on a double berth layout (on the premise that it
represents the typical marina berth layout in the area and is the most economically
efficient for the marina operator) and represents an average of the powerboat and
sailboat areas.
From the tables in the publication, a submerged area of 1, 153 square feet is shown as
being necessary to accommodate the 37-foot average slip length indicated by the
survey for Southern California. Taking all of the aforementioned into account, the
current benchmark rental rate for Southern California is calculated as follows:
• Average berth rate: $23.40
• Average boat length: 37 linear feet
• Submerged land area necessary to accommodate a 37-foot boat slip: 1, 153 SF
• Percent of income attributable to the submerged land: 5 percent
37' x $23.40/linear foot x 12 months = $10,389.60
$10,389.60 x 5% of gross income = $519.48
$519.48 + 1,153 square feet = $0.451 per square foot rental rate
Benchmark Rental Rate =
$0.451 per sq. ft.
The indicated benchmark rental rate for Southern California area is $0.451 per square
foot. In contrast, the 2016 benchmark was $0.374 per square foot. The 2022 benchmark
therefore represents an overall increase of $0.077 (20.6%) from the 2016 benchmark.
California State Lands Commission 4
Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
Table 2. 1. Marina Survey - Southern California
Number
Name
Total
Slips
Occupancy
Rate
Occupied
Slips
Average
Length
Average
Rate
Ventura
1
Bahia Marina
84
96%
81
38
$17.61
2
Channel Islands Harbor Marina
418
90%
376
38
$16.39
3
Peninsula Yacht Marina
310
87%
270
35
$13.82
4
Vintage Marina
384
98%
376
35
$14.30
5
Westport Marina
61
87%
53
30
$11.90
6
Ventura Harbor Village Marina
103
100%
103
63
$13.44
7
Ventura Isle Marina
570
100%
570
40
$18.03
8
Ventura West Marina
542
94%
509
36
$16.64
Averages
94.0%
39
$15.27
Los Angeles
9
Alamitos Bay Marina
1,634
96%
1,569
36
$18.06
10
Long Beach Shoreline Marina
1,605
93%
1,493
37
$18.39
11
Rainbow Harbor and Marina
89
89%
79
35
$17.67
12
Anchorage 47
253
90%
228
29
$19.17
13
Catalina Yacht Anchorage
120
88%
106
27
$16.05
14
Dolphin Marina
424
97%
411
32
$19.12
15
Esprit Marina
216
94%
203
46
$31.81
16
Holiday Harbor Marina
182
94%
171
25
$14.12
17
Marina del Rey Marina
304
85%
258
44
$31.41
18
Neptune Marina
161
81%
130
32
$20.10
19
Panay Way Marina
139
96%
133
30
$17.82
20
The Boat Yard Marina
106
100%
106
31
$20.71
21
Villa del Mar Marina
189
100%
189
41
$21.45
22
California Yacht Marina - Cabrillo
Marina
884
75%
663
36
$16.28
23
Pacific Yacht Landing
174
100%
174
31
$12.17
24
Yacht Haven Marina
161
99%
159
39
$12.02
Averages
92.3%
34
$19.15
California State Lands Commission
Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
Table 2.2. Marina Survey - Southern California
Number
Name
Total
Slips
Occupancy
Rate
Occupied
Slips
Average
Length
Average
Rate
Orange
25
Dana West Marina
846
100%
846
30
$24.48
26
Huntington Harbor Marina
188
100%
188
35
$23.47
27
Sunset Aquatic Marina
229
100%
229
33
$16.67
28
Balboa Yacht Basin
172
100%
172
36
$35.95
29
Bayside Village Marina
124
100%
124
28
$34.38
30
Lido Marina Village
28
100%
28
56
$65.86
31
Newport Dunes Resort and Marina
405
97%
393
30
$48.52
Averages
99.6%
35
$35.62
San Diego
32
California Yacht Marina - Glorietta
Bay arina
100
98%
98
39
$22.00
33
Pier 32 Marina
246
100%
246
43
$23.74
34
Oceanside Harbor
763
100%
763
32
$16.96
35
Dana Landing Marina
78
100%
78
36
$14.34
36
Half Moon Marina
128
100%
128
37
$21.42
37
Kona Kai Marina and Resort
526
99%
521
47
$33.12
38
Marina Village Marina
611
100%
611
30
$16.95
39
Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina
394
100%
394
43
$25.77
40
Point Loma Marina
42
100%
42
57
$37.93
41
Shelter Cove Marina
143
94%
134
38
$25.57
42
Sun Harbor Marina
99
100%
99
45
$21.38
Averages
99%
41
$23.56
Overall Averages
96.3%
37
$23.40
California State Lands Commission
Exhibit B
State of California
Memorandum
To: Brian Bugsch, Chief
Land Management Division
Grace Kato, Assistant Chief
Land Management Division
DS
From: Chaun Wong E�fi
Associate Property Appraiser
Land Management Division
State Lands Commission
Date: May 6, 2022
Subject: Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark 2022 - Rental rate for non -
water dependent use areas extending on and over sovereign land in
Huntington Harbour, Orange County, California
As requested, I have conducted research relevant to establishing a benchmark rental
rate for non -water dependent use areas extending onto and over sovereign land in
Huntington Harbour, Orange County, California. These non -water dependent uses
consist of private decks and other residential -related improvements that extend onto
and over sovereign lands and essentially represent extensions of the usable area of the
adjoining residential lots.
An appraisal is the act or process of developing an opinion of value that must be
numerically expressed as a specific amount, as a range of numbers, or as a relationship
to a previous value opinion or numerical benchmark. This report constitutes an
appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
(USPAP). The compiled research, analyses, and conclusions presented in this appraisal
represents a correlation of residential land values into benchmark rental rates for non -
water dependent use areas located on Huntington Harbour. The benchmark is intended
to be used by Commission staff in negotiations with lessees. It should also be noted that
this appraisal has been performed and the report has been prepared in substantial
compliance with USPAP as it relates to value of sovereign land. Presented on the
following pages are the introduction, the scope of the research, and discussions of the
pertinent findings resulting in the benchmark rental rate.
Benchmarks establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with
concentrations of similar facilities within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5)) For proposed leases involving certain types of
improvements or uses in regions where benchmarks have been approved, staff will
recommend an annual rent based on the applicable benchmark and the lease area.
Benchmark rental rates are based on an analysis of similar land uses or substitute
facilities in the local area. Generally, staff recommends updates to the benchmarks
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
every 5 years. The use of benchmarks improves consistency and transparency
throughout a geographic region, improves staff efficiency in setting and adjusting rent
for large numbers of leases, and saves time and money for both the applicant and the
State. The Huntington Harbour Category 11 benchmark was last updated on September
23,2016.
Introduction
The State Lands Commission is responsible for leasing sovereign lands at Huntington
Harbour. Huntington Harbour is an exclusive waterfront development located in the City
of Huntington Beach in northwestern Orange County. The development is
predominantly single family residential in nature and consists of several man-made
islands and peninsulas situated around a series of channels. The islands and
peninsulas have been developed with high -end waterfront homes, many of which have
boat docks and cantilevered decks.
The development was originally designed by the Huntington Harbour Corporation in the
early 1960s. It was created by dredging and filling the sloughs and marshlands lying in
and around Sunset Bay. Prior to commencement of the project, the developer entered
into two agreements (BLA 18 and SLL 34) with the State Lands Commission. From
these agreements, the State Lands Commission retained fee ownership of the Main and
Midway Channels, while most of the remaining water -covered and land areas are
privately owned.
Within the Main and Midway Channels of Huntington Harbour there are private decks
and other non -water dependent uses that extend onto and over sovereign lands. This
benchmark is intended to address these improvements and uses. The rent for the boat
dock improvements is covered separately by the Southern California Category 1
benchmark.
MethodoLqU
The Commission's authority to lease lands and charge rent comes from the California
State Constitution, the Public Resources Code, and the California Code of Regulations.
The Commission's mandate to charge rent comes from the Gift Clause of the California
State Constitution, which states in part that:
"The Legislature shall have no power to ... make any gift or authorize the
making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual,
municipal or other corporation whatever..." Cal. Const. Art. XVI -6.
Section 6503 of the Public Resources Code states that:
"The Commission shall appraise the lands and fix the annual rent or other
consideration thereof."
California State Lands Commission 2
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
The California Code of Regulations' provides the Commission with broad discretion in
all aspects of leasing.
"Leases or permits may be issued to qualified applicants and the
Commission shall have broad discretion in all aspects of leasing including
category of lease or permit and which use, method or amount of rental is
most appropriate ... based on what it deems to be in the best interest of the
State"
The Regulations then outlines the types of leases and the methods of setting rent for
each. Of these, the "9% of the appraised value of the leased land,12 method is
considered the most directly applicable. The land to be leased is sovereign land located
waterward of the low water mark. Since there is not an active real estate market for
sovereign land, the basis for the benchmark rental rate is the adjoining upland property.
At Huntington Harbour, the adjoining upland property generally consists of single-family
homes on residential lots. The rent to be set is based on the value of the underlying
land and does not include the value of any improvements. Thus, for valuation purposes,
the value of waterfront residential lots at Huntington Harbour is the basis of the rental
rate.
The market value of residential land is typically estimated through use of the Sales
Comparison Approach. In this approach, recent sales and current listings of similar
properties are compared to the subject on the basis of pertinent factors such as
location, size, shape, etc. Typically, an indication of value is then concluded based on a
comparative analysis of these factors. Waterfront residential lots are typically valued on
either a per -lot or on a per -waterfront -foot basis. However, because the lease areas
generally do not represent a full residential lot, the unit of comparison used is the price
per square foot of land area. Per Regulations, rent is then set based on 9% of the
appraised value of the leased land. It should be noted that because this is a benchmark
appraisal — intended to be applied to a number of different lease areas — there is no
specific subject property or lease area. Accordingly, there are no specific adjustments
(for location, size, shape, etc.) made. Instead, the benchmark rental rate is intended to
represent the general characteristics of the benchmark's geographic area.
Market Value of Upland Property
On LandVision3, a search was made to find recent sales of vacant residential lots,
typical in size, fronting the Main or Midway Channels of Huntington Harbour in Orange
County. However, due to its built-up nature, no comparable sales of vacant waterfront
1 Title 2, Administration, Division 3, State Property Operations, Article 2 Section 2000,
General (b).
2 Title 2, Administration, Division 3, State Property Operations, Article 2 Section
2003(a)(1).
3 LandVision is a map -based real estate application that provides real estate,
government, and many other industries with comprehensive map -based property
search, analysis, management, and presentation capabilities.
California State Lands Commission 3
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
residential lots were found. Rather than use comparable sales that do not front the
water, which would necessitate adjustments for location, an allocation method 4 is
employed. In this analysis, residential land values are removed from recent sales of
single-family houses in the Huntington Harbour area through use of the improvement
percentage assigned by the Orange County Assessor's Office. For instance, if a house
sold for $1,000,000 and had an improvement percentage of 40%, then the allocated
value of the land is 60%, or $600,000. For analysis purposes, the unit of comparison
used is the price per square foot of land area.
Summarized in the Comparable Sales Table (see Table 2) are the pertinent details of
29 sales of single-family residences fronting the Main or Midway Channels of
Huntington Harbour in Orange County. The sales took place between February 2018
and December 2021. According to the Indications of Comparable Sales Table (see
Table 3), the lot sizes range from 2,820 to 9,000 square feet, with a mean of 6,088
square feet and a median of 6,000 square feet. The sale prices for the waterfront lots
ranged from a low of $1,175,000 to a high of $6,650,000, with a mean of $3,588,034,
and a median of $3,350,000. According to the Assessor's allocations, the value of the
land in these transactions accounted for between 48.93% and 97.35% of the total price.
Based on these percentages, the value of unimproved residential waterfront land lies
between $110 and $697 per square foot. The mean unit value is $456 per square foot,
while the median is $460 per square foot.
Analysis of the sales revealed no recognizable trends relating to typical lot area and
land value relationships (i.e., unit prices decreasing as sizes increase). The lack of a
size/price relationship is illustrated in the following table. The presentation of the sales is
based on the lot area (SF) of the sales, going from smallest to largest.
4 Allocation is the general process of separating value between the component parts of
a property. A method of estimating land value in which sales of improved properties are
analyzed to establish a typical ratio of land value to total property value and this ratio is
applied to the property being appraised or the comparable sale being analyzed.
California State Lands Commission 4
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 1. Lot Area to Land Value Per SF Table
Lot Area (SF)
Land Value Per SF
2,820
$406
4,590
$483
4,590
$433
5,000
$673
5,000
$332
5,000
$697
5,000
$525
5,120
$367
5,200
$494
5,500
$373
6,000
$458
6,000
$542
6,000
$463
6,000
$458
6,000
$515
6,039
$337
6,480
$483
6,480
$506
6,480
$390
6,480
$426
6,840
$392
6,882
$379
6,900
$460
7,020
$563
7,080
$531
7,560 $409
7 RAn T14M
7,800 $526
9,000 $110
As mentioned earlier, lease areas impacted by the Huntington Harbour Category 2
Benchmark are of various lot areas, waterfrontages, locations, shapes, topographies,
zonings, etc. Due to the uniqueness of each lease area and the lack of significant land
value trends relating to the above elements of comparison; no particular sale is deemed
a better indicator in concluding a land value benchmark. Therefore, an analysis of the
overall dataset is warranted and deemed appropriate in concluding land value for the
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark. As previously stated, the value of the
unimproved land lies between $110 and $697 per square foot. The mean unit value is
$456 per square foot, while the median is $460 per square foot. Based on all the data
California State Lands Commission 5
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
gathered and analyzed, a unit value of $458 per square foot is concluded as reasonable
for the typical upland residential property.
Market Value of Upland Property $458 per square foot
Benchmark Rental Rate
Applying the 9% annual rate of return to the previously concluded market value of the
upland property results in an annual rental rate of $41.22 per square foot5.
Benchmark Rental Rate
$41.22 per square foot
The concluded value is based on the leased land having the same utility as the
adjoining upland. If the leased land does not have the same utility, then a discounted
benchmark rental rate may be warranted.
5 Calculated as $458 x 0.09 = $41.22.
California State Lands Commission 6
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 2. Comparable Sales Table
Number
APN
Address
Sale Date
Lot Area
(SF)
Sale Price
% Assessed
Land Value
Land Value
Land Value
Per SF
1
178-652-24
3585 Courtside Cir
12/1/2021
7,020
$5,600,000
70.57%
$3,952,057
$563
2
178-731-20
3322 Venture Dr
9/20/2021
6,480
$3,860,000
81.15%
$3,132,438
$483
3
178-652-23
3581 Courtside Cir
8/27/2021
7,080
$6,200,000
60.58%
$3,756,120
$531
4
178-652-18
3551 Courtside Cir
6/21/2021
9,000
$1,475,000
66.86%
$986,190
$110
5
178-315-34
17011 Bolero Ln
6/16/2021
5,000
$4,600,000
73.10%
$3,362,749
$673
6
178-421-34
3262 Gilbert Dr
6/10/2021
6,882
$3,550,000
73.44%
$2,607,134
$379
7
178-691-31
3622 Venture Dr
6/2/2021
6,000
$3,350,000
82.05%
$2,748,718
$458
8
178-791-11
3186 Portofino Cir
4/23/2021
5,120
$2,500,000
75.18%
$1,879,556
$367
9
178-402-18
3402 Gilbert Dr
4/13/2021
5,000
$2,500,000
66.34%
$1,658,383
$332
10
178-444-03
16402 Grimaud Ln
2/1/2021
7,800
$5,600,000
73.33%
$4,106,552
$526
11
178-652-29
16642 Coral Cay Ln
2/1/2021
6,000
$6,650,000
48.93%
$3,254,143
$542
12
178-713-03
3532 Venture Dr
12/15/2020
6,000
$3,200,000
86.86%
$2,779,623
$463
13
178-791-10
3182 Portofino Cir
11/4/2020
4,590
$2,725,000
81.32%
$2,215,914
$483
14
178-731-24
3362 Venture Dr
10/9/2020
6,480
$3,895,000
84.16%
$3,278,030
$506
15
178-532-43
16921 Park Ave
9/4/2020
2,820
$1,175,000
97.35%
$1,143,895
$406
16
178-402-19
3392 Gilbert Dr
6/4/2020
5,500
$2,225,000
92.13%
$2,049,937
$373
17
178-421-33
3282 Gilbert Dr
11/13/2019
6,039
$2,520,000
80.84%
$2,037,256
$337
18
178-053-06
16681 Carousel Ln
9/19/2019
5,000
$4,368,000
79.77%
$3,484,230
$697
19
178-411-08
16522 Somerset Ln
9/16/2019
6,000
$3,000,000
91.50%
$2,745,041
$458
20
178-371-09
16795 Bolero Ln
8/1/2019
5,200
$2,850,000
90.08%
$2,567,324
$494
21
178-653-38
16872 Coral Cay Ln
1/7/2019
6,840
$3,151,000
85.10%
$2,681,599
$392
22
178-791-09
3176 Portofino Cir
10/30/2018
4,590
$2,395,000
83.00%
$1,987,782
$433
23
178-713-09
3502 Venture Dr
10/18/2018
6,000
$3,734,000
82.78%
$3,091,109
$515
24
178-713-19
3382 Venture Dr
9/10/2018
6,480
$3,000,000
84.25%
$2,527,571
$390
25
178-654-18
16936 Coral Cay Ln
5/17/2018
7,680
$4,900,000
75.81%
$3,714,598
$484
26
178-652-37
16722 Coral Cay Ln
4/25/2018
6,900
$4,645,000
68.26%
$3,170,875
$460
27
178-653-36
16852 Coral Cay Ln
4/20/2018
7,560
$3,460,000
89.47%
$3,095,556
$409
28
178-731-22
3342 Venture Dr
3/20/2018
6,480
$3,300,000
83.66%
$2,760,678
$426
29
178-315-33
17021 Bolero Ln
2/8/2018
5,000
$3,625,000
72.39%
$2,624,053
$525
California State Lands Commission
Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 3. Indications of Comparable Sales Table
Indications
Lot Area (SF)
Sale Price
% Assessed Land
Value
Land Value
Land Value Per SF
Low
2,820
$1,175,000
48.93%
$986,190
$110
High
9,000
$6,650,000
97.35%
$4,106,552
$697
Mean
6.088
$3,588,034
78.63%
$2,737,900
$456
Median
6,000
$3,350,000
81.15%
$2,748,718
$460
California State Lands Commission
Public Comment
Attachment B:
City of Newport Beach
Fee Information:
5 pgs.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpubIisheddocument/73500/638265007588330000
, - E� of 27 1 ;, % I
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
759
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
City of Newport Beach Schedule of Rents, Fines, and Fees (Si - Detailed
NmE,rnecemsizaerkm index iCPI I pe,ceivap by which is reflectEd in thE51IFF.
None: Wei include a imni down amouni consiaen with acky,
Previous Charges Current Charges
Roundeddown/
Fee Q Policv Level Fee 6 Pol icv Level Variance From Previo
SIMICE KAME
DESCRIPTION
Total or Base Fee
Incrementa I -
(if applicable)
Total OF Base Fee
Incremental -
(III applicable)
Total or Base Fee
Incremental -
fff applicable)
REFERENCE
TYPE
01 Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ercroachment (�5,0 Feet
40800
423.00
15-CO
Council Policy L-12
Reso 91-80 RL 2005-42
Policy
Oceanfront Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ercroachment 5.0-7.5 Feet
612.0
635.00
23.00
Council Policy L-12
Resic 91-80 & 2005-42
Policy
Ocezirifircit Encroachment Annual Permit
Derth Of Ircroachment 7.5-10 Feet
816,00
847.00
31-00
Council Policy L-12
Fiesc 91-80 & 2005-42
Policy
Oceanfront Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ircroachment 10-15 Feet
1,2200
$ 1,272,00
45,00
Council Policy L-12
Resic 91-80 9, 2005-42
Policy
Parcel Map Check
3,169M
1,286,oc
117,00
M.C� 3.16.030
COS -Fee
Plan Cieck.
Engineering Plan Check Fee - Charged hourly
207.00
215.00
3.00
M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Street Closure Perrnit with Engineeril Review
Temporary Clo5ure Of Public Prop"
79.00
82.00
3.100
M.C. 12.62.020(E)
COS -Fee
Street Closure Permit without EngineerIng Review
Temporary Clc5ure Of Public Property
31.00
32.00
MID
M.C. 12.62.020(E)
COS -Fee
Street Easemert and Vacation Proce55ing Fee
1,035.DD
1,073.00
38.00
M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Temporary No Parking Signs
Temporary No Parking Sil
0.80
0.8c
M.C. 3.36.030
Pass Thru
Tract Plan Check
Up To $ 100,000 i mprovement cost
see notes
see notes
M.C,19.56,020(C)
COS -Fee
Tract Plan Check
$100,00OTo �400,000 improvement cost
BRO-00
$ 8,680.010
M.C,19-56,020(C)
COS -Fee
Tract Plan Check
Over �4010,000 improvement cost
29,710.00
$ 28,710.00
M.C.19.56.020(C)
COS -Fee
Traffic Cortrol Plan Check
8V x 11"/11" x17"; per sheet
79.00
$ 82.00
3.00
M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Traffic Cortrol Plan Check
24" x 36"; per s neet
177.00
$ 183.00
6.CO
M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Trafic Study
Utilizes outside consultant
see notes
see notes
M.C, 15,40.050E
Pass Thru
Traffic Subdivision Plan Check
Charged nourly
171,00
$ 177.00
6.00
M.C, 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Deposits
Crane Deposit
Refundable
I,W0.00
$ 1,000,00
12.62.030
Deposit
Improverrems Required By Cily
Refundable
mined by Public Works
Memned by Public Works
-
19-36-030
Deposit
PUBLICWORKS - HARBOR RESOURCES
Fees W6 "Yes" undEr CPI column increased by CPI,
unless noted otherwise
Piers
Residential
$0.55 per square foot
$0.56 per square foot
Resolution 2015-10
Rental
11PIan Review
I
I
P. City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division
P.O. Box 4923
Whittier, CA 90607
www.newportbeachca.gov
Name:
Account#
Customer #
Service Address:
Statement Date:
Due Date:
Total Amount Due:
LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
6004537-672618
672618
MOORING: H 610
2/5/2024
3/1/2024
$133.60
March 2024 Payment must be received on or before the due
date. Payments not received by the due date are subject to a
10% penalty and revocation. You can avoid penalties by
signing up for the City's AutoPay plan.
City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division
P.O. Box 4923
Whittier, CA 90607
Please provide/update the e-mail address and phone number so the City
may contact you about water service problems.
Phon :503-432-6923
E-mail:Adlever@hotmail.com
NPX0205A
4000000409 409/1
LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
3739 LILAC HEIGHTS
SOUTH JORDAN UT84095 USA UT84095-5100
MUNICIPAL SERVICES STATEMENT
Water Conservation Route: MRG
CHARGES: TOTAL:
MOORING OFFSHORE (MONTHLY) $133.60
BILLING SUMMARY
Previous/Beginning Balance $133.60
Payments Applied - THANK YOU $133.60
Total Adjustments $0.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Go online to pay your bills at www.newportbeachca.gov/payments
RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT
Name:
LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
Account #:
6004537-672618
Customer #:
672618
Notice Date:
2/5/2024
Due Date:
3/11/2024
Total Amount Due:
$133.60
Amount Enclosed:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PO BOX 4923
WHITTIER, CA 90607-4923
00006042024801314556000000133603
From: I W <igowestoften@hotmail.com>
Sent: March 02, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Revenue Help <RevenueHelp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fee Schedule
Hi,
I'm trying to learn a bit about Pier Permit fees. I've found a current rate of .56 cents per sq. ft.
on the city's fee schedule.
Could you please tell me over what area that measurement is calculated? And is there a specific
procedure you can refer me to, used determine applicable square footage?
Thanksloads:)
From: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:37 AM
To: igowestoften@hotmail.com <igowestoften@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Fee Schedule
Hi There,
I am responding to your question below concerning the methodology for calculating the square
footage. Fortunately, it is easy.
It is simply the overall square footage of the pier, gangway and float times $0.56. Also, this pier permit
rate only applies to docks over City Tidelands.
I hope this answers your question.
Thank you,
Chris Miller
Manager
Public Works Department
Office: 949-644-3043
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
14 boat berthing spaces, at a Beacon Bay HOA affiliated pier/dock, pay a combined total of $841.97 annually for the
physical footprint of the pier/dock over public submerged lands. The boats pay no fees for the space they occupy.
(A Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner has served on the HOA board)
15
+ Residential Pier Permits (1)
rM
Re5iodential Wer Permit > I . i, "I �6
6W
Address: 2 BE --'- CON BAv
Perm it Area Tata I Sq ua re Footage: 1,4T7
+
Pier is not shared by more than one resident. Fee is i r
based on total square footage. M!,
ir
Permit Fee
Current Year: $841.97
Pier Permit Exhibit
t I- rl-
A pier/dock, CDP Reconfigured under a Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner's name, pays $352.80 per year
(2 Residences x $ 176.40) for the physical footprint of the pier/dock. The boats pay no fees for their footprint.
Public Comment
Attachment C:
Statewide Mooring
Rent/Fee Comparison:
1 Pgo
Mooring fees in Califomia 2024
Yearly fees for 40' boat
Avalon
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy docks provided.
Morro Ba
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.
San Die2o Shelter Island
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.
Monterey Bay
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dingy dock $600 yr
Santa Barbara
Yearly fee to city is
24/7 dingy dock $125 yr
Conclusion:
Avera2e Yearly fees in California
24/7 din2hy docks provided:
Newport Harbor
Mooring permitee must pay
approx. $750 yearly for mooring
maintenance and upkeep.
No din2hy docks provided
After new fee schedule
phase -in:
$523.20.
$1320.
$1538.04. (Maintenance included)
$1000.
$350.00.
$1091.25
$1603.00
$5760.,00*
This rate hike is designed to deny access to all but the wealthiest
people, and force middle class boaters out of the harbor. It will put an
end to affordable family boating in Newport Harbor.
*This number will increase in proportion to increases in marina fee increases and
inflation.
Public Comment
Attachment D:
Harbormaster/
City Attorney/
City Agreement:
1 pgo
Harbormaster Update — April 2022 Activities
May 11, 2022
Page 5
Initiatives were launched resulting in better data capture and statistics reporting.
Future improvements will include customer satisfaction survey data analysis and
calls for service location analysis
Participated in the Emergency Operations Response to the following:
• Elly oil spill
• Tsunami warning
o Three severe weather occurrences
o Sewage spill into the harbor
o Out of control stolen boat in the harbor
The Harbormaster has disclosed the arrangements made, at his own expense to alleviate
any conflict of interest associated with his ongoing use of an offshore mooring permit.
While undergoing the recruitment process, any and all known possible conflicts of interest
were disclosed. Prior to the City making an offer of employment, all such possible
conflicts were discussed with the City Attorney. Agreements and arrangements
satisfactory to all relevant parties were made during that discussion. The Harbormaster
was entrusted and empowered to make determinations going forward related to any
conflict disclosures. In support of this arrangement, the Harbormaster:
- does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations related
to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings
- reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related to offshore
mooring permits are made by Real Property Administration staff
- does not deliberate or vote on any policy related matters before the Harbor
Commission
- is expected to answer questions related to policy implementation and impacts on
Harbor Department operations
- hereby discloses that the offshore mooring permit he enjoys is held in an irrevocable
trust the beneficiary of which is the Balboa Yacht Club. The Balboa Yacht Club holds
all the offshore mooring permits adjacent to the subject mooring
- hoping to avoid other conflict of interest concerns also hereby discloses any
significant financial interests related to the Balboa Yacht Club including a
membership certificate are held in the same irrevocable trust
- further discloses that all remaining financial interests in either the subject offshore
mooring permit or membership in the Balboa Yacht Club are de minimis
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
Public Comment
Attachment E:
RFP Invitation #21-53
I nfo:
3 pgs.
City of Newport Beach
Bid Opportunities
Keyword Bid ype Categories Stage
Department Due Date From 1FD.eDateTo Clear
0 C� _Vl�
Found 862 bids
Posted
Project Title
Invitation #
Due Date Remaining
Stage
Formal A
104/0812021
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services
21-53
05/20J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2712021
Landfill Gas �LFG) Control System Operation & Mainle
21-57
05/1 BJ2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2012021
Business License and Permit Processing Software
21-55
05/1 BJ2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2812021
(4) 2021 Ford F-1 50 2W D Su perCa b Truc ks
21-58
05112/2021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
04/1912021
On -Call TraficJTransportalion Engineering
21-09
05/1 OJ2021 03: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
04/15/2021
FY2020-21 Traffic Signal Rehabilitation
C-T791 -1
05flOJ2021 10-00am
Closed
Electronic
104/1312021
Establishment of Eligibility List for Referral of Real Est
21-54
04/2812021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
104/01/2021
Armored Transport Services
21-52
04f28J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/1912021
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS -TESTING, DESIG_
7223-1
04/2012021 02:00pm
Award Pending
Electronic
C3/22/2021
Parking Code Consulting Services
21-43
04f I 3J2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/1912021
AS -NEEDED SPORT& RECREATIONAL FIELD LANDS
7997-1
04/0812021 02:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/2412021
As -Needed Athletic and Recreational Field Services
21-45
04/08J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
C3/2512021
Dover Shores Traffic Calming Improvements
7998-1
0410BJ2021 10:00am
Closed
Electronic
103/2412021
(3) 2021 Toyota Tacoma 44 Double Cab Vehicles
21-46
04/0712021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic d
02/18/2021
UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N.
7979-1
04107J2021 10-00am
Awarded
Electronic
103/1012021
Generator Maintenance & Repair Services
21-41
04/0612021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
Copyright 0 2024 PlarietE ids. LLC
VendorLine I DarkMode PrivacyPolicy I Terms &Conditions Accessibility
City of Newport Beach
< Back to Bid Sear&
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal ServiceS21-53
Bid Information DccurnerTts Addenda/Ernails Q&A Prospective Bidders Bid Results
Showing 4 Bid i?osufts
Vendor
Lea Associates, Inc.
1631 PontiusAvenue
Los Angeles, California 90025
Contact: Robert M. Lea, MAI
Phone: 31C-477-6595
Netzer & Associates
170 E Seventeenth Street, Suite 206
Costa Mesa, California 92527
Contact: James Netzer, MAI
Phone:9496316799
R. P. Laurain & Associates, Inc.
3353 Linden Avenue
Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90807
Contact: John P Laurain
Phone:5624260477
The Dore Group Inc
10 10 U n iversity Aven ue
Suite C207
Sa n Diego, C a I ifc)m ia 921 C 3
Contact: Lance W_ Dore
Phone: 619-933-5040 e)cL 101
A421,_ 0 1-1
qu 1�
Awards
Type Bid Amount Ranking Reoponsive
$0.0000 0 Yes
$0.0000 0 yes
$0.0000 0 Yes
DGS $0.0000 0 Yes
Copyright 0 2024 PlanetBids, LLC VendorLine I Bark Mode I PrivacyPolicy I 11i & Conditions I Accessibilry,
City of Newport Beach
< Back to Bid Search
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal ServiceS21-53
Bid Information DccurnerTts Addenda/Emails Q&A Prcspedive Bidders Bid Results Awurch
Awarded on August 3,2021
Please see the attached Notice of Intent to Award (also uploaded under iheAddenda & Emails" tab of this RFP page) for additional details regarding the evaluation and award process for RFP 21-53
Item # Item Code Description UoM
*,' COMpletG PFojeCt
1 Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services Complete Project
Wp�_ C ) 1-1
qu 1�
The project has been awarded tc) Net7er & As sociales W
a
1
Copyright 0 2024 PlanetBids, LLC VendorLine I Bark Mode I PnvacyPolicy I Ferms & Conditions I Accessiblirty
Public Comment
Attachment F:
A partial selection of images, showing
various members of the public
transitioning through; recreating in;
and using the supposed space
Mooring Permittees are claimed by
the City, to have Private Exclusive Use
of, as compared to the level of Private
Exclusive Use exercised by the City
itself, and select Residential Pier
Permitees:
21 pgs.
'hit,
-wit -
to
.AMC :lt,44�ta
avmm�l Wimp
4L
a
.fl
Ll
-1 � 4*
6-1
1 ot
I
Moo-
It
OovtjmmoqppllF—W- 4
At
moo. a
44
0.4w 40 A6 .. moo
dligr
iC
.-A
f
14., 1 144
Ap
'Liao
Filimoft -Roft
-4040 1
,TWA -
)6
qh
_� �---
-_-�-�.---►- �..,. "'ice +y
-`' ��-
�'`- . - -
', � s
-�� � '�--
� --e T
. `_::
it If,
AD
9 TV W,
L-2
k- I
0 maw
Als
.wool-
E-�- ..
*�.. go 4ts. — --
w000z...-, .'IRK
44P
The following images, show City and
Residential piers/docks,
which occupy granted sovereign land,
but which are posted as if Private Property:
mrrwmq
AL
-,-: 'T:'
No Twf ss�m-tvm
r-q
L A
let
sow
INOW7 mum MEOW
I 1"ll
r
lam
IL
f7l
7t�
j I
�A
PO
oil
v
AM
A
lr9mmL.§
lie
7TOV%
I PFOVATE
i I
Lim -
AI
lit
Z 74MR
low
From:
Sally Peterson
To:
City Clerk"s Office
Subject:
Mooring Transfer Proposed Changes
Date:
July 07, 2024 6:13:16 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
-ontent is safe.
The proposed changes to the City Code regarding Mooring Transfers are shocking.
A "No" vote is encouraged.
Per the Harbor Department policies regarding mooring transfers, the City has
supported such transfers by establishing policy regarding registering the transfers and
collecting a fee for such transfers. They openly published sales prices, thus creating
a "market value". Now, the City is proposing total changes to their policy which are to
take effect August 22, 2024, a month + from consideration. These changes take
away our rights:
1. The proposed change reduces the rights of a mooring holder. A permittee would
no longer be able to transfer his permittee rights. The City will reduce those rights to
a licensee status and remove further transfer rights. Ultimately, the City will take all
rights from a mooring holder. Upon approval of this code change, the "market value"
created by the City will be reduced to near nothing. The City will be responsible for
ourlosses.
2. The proposed changes include preventing inheritance of a mooring. Many
moorings have been in families for generations. Each generation develops their
knowledge and love for boating having grown up with small boats stored on a shore
mooring. Typically, the mooring is conveniently near the family's home, a
convenience that translates into more boat use and better kept boats and moorings.
Preventing a mooring from being kept in a family that cares is a mistake.
ADVANTAGES OF KEEPING TRANSFERABILTY - I paid to get a mooring near my
house because I found that I wasn't using my boat that was on another mooring I had
many blocks away. Additionally, I didn't go by this other mooring often enough to
keep the boat and mooring in good condition. It was worth paying for the
convenience. By stopping transferability, you reduce the chances of a mooring holder
getting a mooring in a convenient location, a location that enables the mooring holder
to care for the mooring and boat. They will instead get whatever mooring the City has
available. And the City's proposed system will not enable them to make a transfer to
get a mooring in a more convenient location. This is a real negative for the Bay.
From: Leuna. Grac
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: FW: Another Discussion on the Proposed Offshore Mooring Increase
Date: July 08, 2024 10:04:18 AM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.pnQ
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trornbatore@gnnai1.corn>
Sent: J u ly 07, 2024 4:59 P M
To: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Another Discussion on the Proposed Offshore Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
July 7, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Manager, Grace K Lueng
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and you the CIty Manager
a letter stating my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.
I reviewed the agenda for the July 9, 2024 meeting and found several documents (A-K) under
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46and 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings.
It is clear to me that after reviewing all the documents, the intent of the City Council will be to
pass this ordinance and resolution, no matter what public objections will be or have been
expressed. There are several hundred e-mails and letters in Attachment J - Public Comments
that oppose this measure, and seem to have little or no impact of the Harbor Commission or
City Council.
There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 20 10 that has made the certain passage
if the ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.
So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor
Commission. So let's look at what your decision to pass the ordinance and resolution will
mean to me.
Below is data that I extracted from Attachment B from the Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and 2024-
47. 1 put it in a spreadsheet to clearly understand the percentage of increase that you are
imposing on me.
On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly
permit fee (equal to $166.75 per month).
On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month).
On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month).
And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month).
On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month) and last on July 1, 2029 an
increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month).
This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of
24.9% and more.
On July 1 of 2029 1 would be paying 3.6 times more monthly permit fees than in 2024.
So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029?
And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on
Balboa Yacht Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025
ONLY 4%? These are numbers from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.
Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa
Yacht Basin rates that the CIty of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of
interest?
I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath unit with a garage in
North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I want to make money,
cover my expense and keep a long-term tenant. What if I take the same percentages that
the City of Newport is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The first year my
tenant would pay $547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be
$7,920 per month. AM I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU
SAME INCREASE?
In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding
Whitlinger; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer appraisal that should not
be adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach,
methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas
where the appraisal would benefit from clarification."
In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion
of the moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed
explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors
of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences."
I do not see where the Harbor Commission or the staff addressed these concerns by the
California Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities to
the offshore moorings. Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair
comparison and glossed over.
If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, which certainly
looks like the will, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that
destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like
me, that will lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands,
under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.
This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the
City Council to do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the offshore
mooring permittees. I strongly encourage you to recommend the City Council to NOT vote to
increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the people they
serve.
Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their
constituents in a fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore�&,gmailsom
From:
Staoleton, Joe
To:
Brown, Leflani
Cc:
Hari), Aaron
Subject:
FW: Mooring discussion
Date:
July 08, 2024 11:41:20 AM
Joe Stapleton
Mayor Pro Tern
Office: (949) 644-3004
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to
the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Clabaugh <matt@valenciagroupinc.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8,2024 10:03 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Newport City Council:
I know the harbor. This mooring fee issue can destroy a valuable and unique quality of my home.
My grandparents bought their first home on the island in 1960. We still have it. I've lived in Newport since 1974,
graduated CdM in 1977, sailed the harbor for 45 years, my business has been in Newport Beach since 1993, my kids
graduated CdM, and our family is in its 5th generation here.
This mooring fee increase is among the worst ideas I've seen. If something is passed, in any form, without the
concurrence of existing mooring permittees, it will change the nature of the harbor for the worse.
We don't need Sacramento style politics here. The best option here is to put aside the vote and work together.
Please do not vote to damage the harbor.
Matt Clabaugh
240 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, ca 92660
Sent from my iPhone
From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Date: July 08, 2024 11:42:03 AM
From: CHRIS BLISS <chrisbliss@cox.net>
Sent: July 08, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>;
Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>;
Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Reverse mortgage on moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
,ontent is safe.
E11111111
Christopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
To:
Newport Beach City Council Members
The press has been invited to witness this spectacle of capitalism at its
finest.
A bunch of wealthy politicians, some of whom live in waterfront homes
with docks, and pay little or no tideland fees at aU, are about to give
all the mooring holders a choice:
Accept the city's plan to raise fees to the to a point that after a few years
it will be so expensive that you will be forced out of the harbor. (Never
mind that we get to use the same tidelands for FREE because we
are rich and privileged, and really have no use for middle class
boaters in our harbor).
ME
Accept our "reverse mortgage" plan, in which you can stay on your
mooring longer at the same rate, but at the end, all equity that you may
have in the mooring permit will be gone and the city will "Confiscate" the
mooring and then rent it for a rate that will be unaffordable for most
people. (Never mind that all the wealthy and privileged
homeowners with docks also get to use the same tidelands for
FREE and rent out their docks for PROFIT).
There is a third option:
Please postpone the vote on this matter, sit down face to face in a
meaningful discussion, and let us present the NIVIA plan which will be a
compromise that I'm sure we can all live with.
Thank you.
Christopher Bliss
From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Moring rate rip off
Date: July 08, 2024 11:43:53 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Legere <stevenwlegere@aol.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:23 PM
To: Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Moring rate rip off
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Unfair increase in moring rate
Sent from my Whone
From:
Biddle, Jennife
To:
City Clerk"s Office
Subject:
FW: Moorings
Date:
July 08, 2024 11:44:13 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:28 PM
To: Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hi,
Is it true that under the city's proposal moorings could not be transferred after 2028?
Thanks,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.
Balboa Island
949-500-ol48
From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Fair and Equitable ?
Date: 3uly 08, 2024 11:44:42 AM
From: Surf n Sail <srfnsail@gmail.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom,
Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill,
William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fair and Equitable ?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
-ontent is safe.
40-foot mooring currently paying $1,603 per year would soar to
$5,770++ per year !!
Difficult to see how this is Fair or Equitable ??
How can this discrimination be justified ??
W
-A C
From:
Richard Holbroo
To:
Blom, Noah
Subject:
mooring rate increase
Date:
July 05, 2024 3:05:58 PM
Hi -
I want to state my objection to the City Council's plan to increase mooring rates.
As the permit holder for Mooring B- 12 1, 1 feel the proposed rates are unfair compared to rates
paid for dock leases in the harbor.
Also, the process the City has used to determine the new rates seems unjust and inequitable.
Please reconsider this ill advised and egregious rate increase.
best -
rmh
Richard Holbrook (design)
288 Chiquita Street
Laguna Beach CA 92651
(626) 676-9084
www.richardholbrook.com
From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 08, 2024 11:45:23 AM
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blorn@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
July 5, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council. Member, Noah BLom
We seem to be at a tipping point on the issue of raising the offshore mooring rates in
Newport Harbor. The matter is on the agenda for Tuesday, JuLy 8, 2024 Council. meeting. I
wiLL be at the meeting to carefuLLy Listen to the recommendations from the Harbor
Commission and the City CounciL's consideration of the matter.
I have personally written several, letters to the Harbor Commission and you the City
Council, of the unfairness to target and raise my mooring permit fee. I have been in the
harbor for over twenty-five years and have been a good tenant.
It now appears that you want to raise the permit fee to $480 per month on my forty foot
mooring. That is a 3.6 times more than I am currentLy paying.
What is the purpose of the proposed increase?
What is the City of Newport's reasoning behind the increase?
Why are the mooring rates tied to the slip rates in Basin Marina? We certainLy do not
have the same amenities that are afforded the sLip hoLders.
This is a ridiculous increase!
Why remove the transferabiLity of the mooring permits? This is a revenue source to
the City and a f airway to rejuvenate the usage of the mooring permittees..
If you, the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, you
will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the
affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, Like me, that
will Lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under
the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.
Unless you can definitively explain the reasoning and justification for this increase to
me, I strongly encourage you to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in
place the current rate structure for the people you serve.
Is your position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of your
constituents? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.
Sincerely,
Te rry W. Tro m b ato re
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(@gmai1.com
From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Mooring Fee Rate Hikes
Date: July 08, 2024 11:45:45 AM
From: Patrick Chandler <patrickchandler@hotmail.com>
Sent: J u ly 05, 2024 3:5 6 P M
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>;
Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>;
O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Newport Mooring Association <mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
Subject: Mooring Fee Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
The proposed rate hikes are insane.
I hope the City is ready for a lawsuit.
Patrick Chandler
From:
Biddle, Jennife
To:
City Clerk"s Office
Subject:
FW: Mooring increase
Date:
July 08, 2024 11:46:00 AM
From: natalie fogarty <natal iefoga rty5 @gma il.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:00 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blorn@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
,ontent is safe.
Ptease be fair to those who have moorings. A modest
adjustment wilL Let those who are not the very rich to
maintain moorings. How many owners in the area couLd
afford to buy in this area today?
NataLie Fogarty
From:
Biddle, Jennifer
Sent:
July 08, 2024 11:46 AM
To:
City Clerk's Office
Subject:
FW: moorings
Attachments:
shoremooring.clocx
From: Robert Payne <bakpayne@att.net>
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe <mstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <baverv@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom,
Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill,
William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: moorings
[EXTERNAL E
content is safe.
April 10, 2022
Dear Honorable City Council Members and Members of the Harbor Commission,
My first letter to you on the subject of shore moorings was a description of many members of our
community's, including my own, experience with a lifetime of small craft usage upon the waters of
our fine harbor.
You have received many similar reports from residents from all walks of life on this subject: Kids
growing up learning the rudimentary skills of sailing and seamanship, sharing priceless time on the
water with parents and grandparents, experiencing all that the use and access to our coastal
waterways has to offer.
The ability to maintain a given location in which to anchor a small vessel with a connection to the
beach (a shore mooring) has been part of the bay's waterfront since it's inception as a recreational
and residential harbor. I have never heard anyone complain about the amount a user was required to
pay for his or her use of the public tidelands. Nor have I ever heard a complaint that users of
moorings didn't reimburse the state enough for their share of their patch of eelgrass, stingrays and
muck. The nominal rates charged for the use of the state tidelands have remained equitable while
supply and demand have increased the "market" value of obtaining the right to participate in the
system. In short, the system has been working just fine while undergoing various changes in the rules
by which an individual may use the space. (The City, the County, now the City again)
All this begs the question: why now? Why is suddenly this issue boiling over with controversy?
What's next? Offshore moorings, private docks, marinas? Is it really necessary because we live in a
place of high property values and expensive yachts that everything must be similarly made more
expensive? This seems like a problem that did not need to be created.
My suggestion is that we all take a deep breath, back away and take a fresh look at the situation. It'5
a shore mooring; nothing more, nothing less. We do not need to obsess over the futile attempt to
assess the intrinsic value of the spaces involved. People keep small boats on them because we have
no public launch ramps and you are not supposed to haul them over the seawall each time you want
to go for a sail. I urge you, who have the authority to do so, to leaving things alone.
Thank you for your attention.
Bob Payne
Balboa Island
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: mooring fees
From: Carol Rinderknecht <rinderbythebay@gmail.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:11 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: mooring fees
LEA I EKNAL r-I-IMILJ DO 190T CL1=1nKS or anachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
L An
I hope you plan on voting AGAINST the mooring hike increase! It's unfair to price out the
average user. If you're not priviLeged then you won't have a chance.
Ty
Carol, Rinderknecht
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW:
From: Annie Burton <annieb503@gmail.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 5:41 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom,
Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill,
William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject:
[EXTERNAL E
content is safe.
PLease vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increases
Thankyou.
949.466.0542
annieb503@gmail.com
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:48 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: moorings
From: Tim Lewis <zooterincm@aol.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 9:17 PM
To: Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>;
Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fw: moorings
I C I: I I
OEM,
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Tim Lewis <zooterincmCcDaol.com>
To: 'stapletonC@newport eachca.gov �i�stapleton(ja�newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 at 09:13:13 PM PDT
Subject: moorings
Please consider this, is it wise for the city to be in the mooring business? The city will
be in direct competition with the private marinas and the returns will not justify the
risk. The city will poorly manage and end up with $IVI's of expense and a great loss to
many undesignated local venders. While the Harbor Commision has proposed income,
they have failed to create a "business plan" that includes "everything". Your role might
be to question this proposal before committing the taxpayers of This City to Shurley a
can of worms.
You should have been briefed on the poised lawsuit ($200K donated) and the
complaint filed with the state lands commission. Going forward with this proposal
seems to ignore the potential damages.
You have probably watched our neighbor city of Huntington Beach getting their
feathers trimmed by the State. The bottom line will be from the State lands Commision
and at this time they are "looking at the problem'.
It is easy to "Ask for more information", vote to do more research and vote yes when
"all the ducks are in a row". This is not that time!
Thank you for all you do
Former resident, former vender, current BYC member, current mooring permit owner
and someone that values Newport Beach as a place to share with a lot of nice people.
Tim Lewis
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring rate increase
-----Original Message -----
From: scott allen <scotthallen@icloud.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 7:59 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Noah,
I encourage you to vote no on the proposed mooring rate increase at the July 9 council meeting. The
rate increases does not include dock owners nor the various yacht clubs. And there are significant
disagreements on the method used in creating the new rates.
Please vote no.
Thankyou
Scott Allen
204 Amethyst Ave
Balboa Island
7144699647
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:07 AM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hi,
To put it in the simplest of terms ... THE PROPOSED MOORING FEE INCREASES OR CANCELLATION OF THE
PERMITS IS UNREASONABLE AND UNFAIR!
The harbor should continue as a place of recreation ... not a politically motivated money grab!
Mark Sork
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: J u ly 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring fee rates
From: M Thompson <merideethompson@gmail.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring fee rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blom
I have watched you in meetings and read your emails and I wonder, what's in it for
you? You aren't young, you probably don't boat a lot. Have you ever even put a boat on
a mooring? Of course not. So why do you even care about spoiling it for everyone else?
What is your end goal? Please share.
No one lives forever and as we enter the fourth quarter of our lives we often want to
leave a legacy behind. Sometimes we want to get revenge for unknown reasons. Kind
of feels like this is your deal. It's obvious you are behind this Netzer appraisal business.
If it goes to court there is so much evidence that you twisted facts under illegal means.
I would think you would like to end up as a reasonable, respected individual. No one
wants to be remembered for ruining the bay for the future people to use. That is what
you will do if this plan of yours, whatever the end game is, goes through. You won't be
around to spend the money for long. Why are you doing this? I wouldn't want that
legacy. Who are you trying to impress? I am sincere in wondering if you don't need to
think about this, about your business practices. You may be powerful but you may not
be liked. You really want people to have all of that negative energy directed towards
you in their thoughts about what you are doing here?
Your life is yours to lead, as we boaters say, we go with the wind. Maybe you should
turn into the wind and see what the future holds for people who go about ruining other
peoples' lives. You have money and power. Is this fun for you? I can't imagine this and
I wonder about your mind. Please be kind to people who haven't clawed their way to
the top like you have, any way you could. It's not a good look for an old man.
Sincerely,
Meridee Thompson
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring rate increase
From: Jessie Fleming <jessiefleming@icloud.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring rate increase
LEA I hKITAL r-I-IMILJ UU NU I ULIGR tin KS or a Rach me nts un less you recognize the sender and know the
Hello and thank you for receiving my emaiL. My name is Jessie Reming and I Live Aboard My
Boat on a Mooring in tideLand Waters off Newport Beach. As you have recently heard
Newport Beach city plans to raise the rate of TideLand water only permits for offshore
Moorings. As a Mooring hoLder we pay for our space in the water towards TideLand water
only permits. In Newport Beach we already pay more than any other tideland permit in the
state! Now, Newport Beach proposes to give us a rate increase of over 400%. We have all
purchased our own ground tackle and maintain it reguLarLy. We have no city amenities and
we have no access to parking and limited space to a pubLic dock, in order to go ashore. Our
tideland water only permit is not only more expensive than any other permit in the state,
but it is much much more expensive than other tideland permits in Newport Beach. We pay
more than yacht cLub mooring permits, commercial, dock, permits, and privately owned
dock permits. All permits in Newport Beach are not equal. and when we ask why this is so?
And how can this be? The city said... (I quote) "The city may change different rates for
different uses when it is supported by an appraisal that makes distinctions in value". Well,
if this is so... Anyone can tell you that offshore Moorings are far Less vaLuable than any
commercial, or privately owned Dock. The city toLd us we are charging you more because
we can and we know we can get these rates in Newport Beach. I feLt like a child being told
"Because I said so"! The point is we live on tideLand state Waters not Newport Beach
waters. Many of us Live Aboard with set incomes through Social Security or disability
checks. We have planned our retirement days here. We have purchased our ground tackle,
applied for liveaboard permits, follow all the rules, and pay our fees. Now we are told that
our tideLand water only permit rate wil.l. increase over 400% and this rate will not be in many
of our budgets. What this means is that the lower middLe-cLass income famiLies can no
Longer enjoy the State Land Tideland waters that are here for ALL to enjoy. We will all be
forced out of Newport Beach. I ask you to pLease consider our request to hoLd Newport
Beach accountabLe to manage these water permits to be equal and fair rates for aLL permit
holders and not discriminatory. As Live aboards and retires I have never seen such stress
among my neighbors in 40 yrs. This absurd rate increase has caused such anxiety for so
many who have passed down generations of boating. Most will be forced out and no longer
able to continue to have access for boating in the family. Please help us to hold the city
accountable to stay within state Land permit equality recommendations. If you vote this
through and the rate increase passes it will be a very sad day for all. Please help us and
consider our request. Thank you.
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathlyn Lujan <kathylujan@me.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:28 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increases. Instead, work with community leaders to find a
more equitable solution.
Sent from my Whone
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 7:38 AM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMr1L] DO NOT ELICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Date: JuLy 5, 2024 at 2:28:02 PM PDT
To: nbLom(a)newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moorings
H i,
Is it true that under the city's proposal, moorings could not be transferred
after 2028?
Thanks,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.
Balboa Island
949-500-ol48
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring Fee Increase
From: potenza04@aol.com <potenza04@aol.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Blom, Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the
content is safe.
I know this is a little long but please take the time to read it.
Please keep me anonymous to the Harbor Department. I'm fearful of retaliation for
what I'm sending you.
Please do not allow these outrageous, unfair and unwarranted Mooring Fee Increases
of over 400%.
I have been a Mooring Permit (MP) holder in good standing for over 40 years. My
family and I have long appreciated the ability to enjoy boating made possible by
reasonable MP rates. I have dragged my 8 foot dinghy across the sand all these years
knowing that was normal for the ability to access a mooring. I'm now in my 70s so it's
harder every year but I still do it so our family can enjoy boating.
My wife and I are retired and absolutely cannot afford these unreasonable rate
increases. We'd be forced to sell our boat and I'm sure many other MP holders will be
too. Selling in a market where there will be many, many boats for sale will be a long
process, if even possible, with the new rates and non -transferability for the buyers. We
had hoped to keep the boat and MP in the family forever. My dad and I built most of the
boat and she's a beautiful boat.
Appraisals and Fair Rates
The appraiser the Harbor Commission used is comparing apples and oranges. How
can you compare Tidelands with moorings to Real Estate with Tidelands, Marinas which
operate for profit and Yacht Clubs which entice more members to join and gain financial
benefits? When compared to all other mooring fields in California we are in line with
their rates, as the Mooring Association appraisal demonstrates. Apples to apples!
The Harbor Commissions appraiser states that rates are being increased in a San
Diego mooring field but that turns out to be untrue!
When comparing Tidelands use for docks we pay much more per square foot or linear
foot than houses with docks. I believe their docks can be rented creating a financial
gain. I've seen them advertised through the years. Your appraiser states there is a
market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it's illegal and
puts the Permit holders at risk of losing their MP. The vast, vast majority of us abide by
this rule. Don't punish us for the few that don't. Of course comparing Marinas to
moorings is absurd. They have many amenities that moorings don't and operate for
p rofi t.
Transfer -ability
Transfer -ability is critical when you need to sell a boat on a mooring. The rule has
always been that the MP was transferable as long as you sold a qualifying boat moored
on it. The city has allowed this rule to be bent or even bypassed for many, many years
now. This created a market for mooring sales that should not have been
allowed. Please don't punish those of us who have always followed the
rules. Someday we will have to sell our boats and removing transfer -ability and
charging these outrageous rates will make it almost impossible.
Building an Unnecessary Bureaucracy
The reason I want to remain anonymous to the Harbor Department is for fear of
reprisal because of what I'm about to state. I know that the Harbor Department is
a very small part of the City Budget and may not get much attention. However
they are building a very large and unnecessary Bureaucracy. In FY 24 their Total
Operating Budget cost the city $2,445,960. Their Salaries and Benefits alone were
$1,521,414. They have gone from 3 Full Time Employees and 9.39 Part Time in FY
23 to 9 Full Time and 4.29 Part Time in FY 24. Their FY 25 proposed budget is
$2,817,875. This will be a 59% increase since FY 22. Like I said I've been around
here a long time and although I don't know the exact cost from when the Sheriff's
Department ran the moorings for the city but I'm certain it wasn't and still
wouldn't cost anywhere near this amount. A number that has been brought up
was $300,000. There has been little improvement since the Harbor Department
took over vs. when the Sheriffs managed the harbor. The Harbor Department was
doing a fine job when their budget was at 1.77 million in FY 23. Is it really worth
spending this exorbitant amount of our Tax Payer Money when they were more
than adequate before?
Doing the Right Thing
This would be like telling someone renting an apartment from you that you're increasing
their rent by 4 to 5 times. Obviously they would have no option but to leave in almost
every case. Be reasonable basing rates on the CPI is fair. I learned we were using the
CPI or 2% whichever is lower. It should have been based on the CPI only. Going back
to 2016 when this rate formula was adopted and using just the CPI not the 2% to create
new more fair rates would be the right thing to do.
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:53 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo <mikeromomg@gmail.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Outrageous mooring rate increases
nts unless you recognize the sender and know the
I am a home owner on Balboa Island and have the privilege of an onshore mooring that has been
in my family since 1958. We have kept the mooring maintained faithfully and I pay my property
taxes promptly.
I urge you to vote no on the proposed grossly unfairly large rate increases and to work with the
community to develop a fair solution.
Respectfully,
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomplft mail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:54 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Proposed Mooring Fee Increases
From: cwtillman@cox.net <cwtillman@cox.net>
Sent: July 07, 2024 7:51 AM
To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increases
NOT CLICK Lin
Dear Councilman Avery,
This is just a short note to first say hello (we sailed together on Hawaii on Alaska Eagle many years ago —
a fantastic experience!) and to urge you to not vote for the proposed fee increases for mooring permits
in Newport Beach. While everyone does understand the need to fund the harbor, the current proposals
are unfair as they single out mooring permittees, don't include all moorings, and do not address other
tideland users like dock owners. Surely its is clear that mooring permittees are already encumbered as
harbor users, without easy access and lack of power or water, unlike other tideland users not addressed
in the fee increase proposals.
As a fellow yachtsman, and someone who has my admiration as a leader, please consider withholding
your support of these proposals and instead seeking solutions that are more equitable to all harbor
users. I would be happy to volunteer my time to help in that effort.
Best regards,
Craig Tillman
(949) 395-7444
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:55 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathlyn Lujan <kathylujan@me.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:25 PM
To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increase. Instead, work with community leaders to find a
more equitable solution.
Sent from my Whone
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:55 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Morning increases
From: Dick Andrews <captaindickyl0l@gmail.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Morning increases
[EXTERNAL EMW DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unLess you recognize the sender a
Dear city council members I wil.l. be unabLe to come to the meeting tomorrow do that I am
out of town I'm emaiLing to let you know that I wiLL be out of the home due to your proposed
increases I'm a disabled vet on disabiLity and Social. Security your proposed increases will
cause me to lose my home please do not vote Yes on the increases
Thank you for your time and attention Dick Andrews morning J 210
From: Suzy McLaughlin <soozi43@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting
July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes
to transferability.
We owned a shore mooring for over 40 years and were grateful to have it. It afforded
our family years and years of sailing and shared experiences. We were not a wealthy
family (certainly not by today's Newport Beach standards) and sailing was an activity we
could afford with simple boats and affordable mooring fees.
Please don't deprive other families of this rare and important experience in today's
world. Newport has already become untouchable for most people; please don't make
boating even more elite and unattainable.
Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council
Meeting July 9th, 2024.
From: Suzy McLaughlin <soozi43 @sbcgloba 1. net>
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office
<CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL E
content is safe.
Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes
to transferability.
We owned a shore mooring for over 40 years and were grateful to have it. It afforded
our family years and years of sailing and shared experiences. We were not a wealthy
family (certainly not by today's Newport Beach standards) and sailing was an activity we
could afford with simple boats and affordable mooring fees.
Please don't deprive other families of this rare and important experience in today's
world. Newport has already become untouchable for most people; please don't make
boating even more elite and unattainable.
Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin
From: Matt Schenone <maschenone@gmail.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting
July 9th, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAT" -,%,F\ links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is s
I am writing to express concern with the proposed mooring changes and the threat to
affordable boating opportunities in Newport Harbor.
The current proposed mooring rate increases use marina slips for comparison. Mooring
rates should be a fraction of slip rates, as they are significantly inferior to slips. Other
than the right to berth a boat in the water, there is no comparison between a mooring
and marina. Mooring permittees receive no amenities in return for their payments:
permittees pay for and maintain their own tackle, have no fresh water or electricity, have
no convenient access to their mooring. Why are marina slip rates relevant, and why
would future mooring rate increases be tied to increases in slip rates at a marina?
Why are increased mooring rates under consideration when mooring permit holders
already pay much higher rates than other tideland permittees? Private docks use
significantly more tideland than a mooring. Why this crusade against mooring
permittees and not other tideland users?
Thank you for your consideration.
Matt Schenone
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council
Meeting July 9th, 2024.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Suzy McLaughlin <soozi43 @sbcgloba 1. net>
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office
<CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe
content is sqfp. —
Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes
to transferability.
We owned a shore mooring for over 40 years and were grateful to have it. It afforded
our family years and years of sailing and shared experiences. We were not a wealthy
family (certainly not by today's Newport Beach standards) and sailing was an activity we
could afford with simple boats and affordable mooring fees.
Please don't deprive other families of this rare and important experience in today's
world. Newport has already become untouchable for most people; please don't make
boating even more elite and unattainable.
Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:14 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council
Meeting July 9th, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Matt Schenone <maschenone@gmail.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the
�fe.
I am writing to express concern with the proposed mooring changes and the threat to
affordable boating opportunities in Newport Harbor.
The current proposed mooring rate increases use marina slips for comparison. Mooring
rates should be a fraction of slip rates, as they are significantly inferior to slips. Other
than the right to berth a boat in the water, there is no comparison between a mooring
and marina. Mooring permittees receive no amenities in return for their payments:
permittees pay for and maintain their own tackle, have no fresh water or electricity, have
no convenient access to their mooring. Why are marina slip rates relevant, and why
would future mooring rate increases be tied to increases in slip rates at a marina?
Why are increased mooring rates under consideration when mooring permit holders
already pay much higher rates than other tideland permittees? Private docks use
significantly more tideland than a mooring. Why this crusade against mooring
permittees and not other tideland users?
Thank you for your consideration.
Matt Schenone
From: Weigand, Ed
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: Fwd: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 08, 2024 12:15:47 PM
At the request of Aaron, I am forwarding you emails that are addressed just to me.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Erik
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com>
Date: July 8, 2024 at 12:06:03 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
July 8, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council Member, Erik Weigand
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and the CIty Manager a
letter stating my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.
I reviewed the agenda for the July 9, 2024 meeting and found several documents (A-K) under
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46and 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings.
It is clear to me that after reviewing all the documents, the intent of the City Council will be
to pass this ordinance and resolution, no matter what public objections will be or have been
expressed. There are several hundred e-mails and letters in Attachment J - Public Comments
that oppose this measure, and seem to have little or no impact of the Harbor Commission or
City Council.
There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 20 10 that has made the certain
passage of the ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.
So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor
Commission. So let's look at what your decision to pass this ordinance and resolution will
mean to me.
Below is data that I extracted from Attachment B from the Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and
2024-47. The chart is presented to fully understand the percentage of increase that you are
imposing on me, as well as the slip rent increase for Balboa Yacht Basin for the same 40 foot
slip analysis comparison.
Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Increase
Year Current Mooring New Mooring Percentage Balboa Percentage
Rate per L/F Proposed Increase Yacht Basin Increase for
Rate per L/F Under New 40ft Slip Fee Balboa Yacht
Rates per L/F Basin 40ft Slip Fee
2024$3.33 $1.25
1/12025 $4.16 24.9% $1.30 4.0%
7/l/2025 $5.04 21.2%
l/l/2026 $6.78 34.5%
l/l/2027 $8.53 25.8%
l/l/2028 $10.28 20.5%
l/l/2029 $12.02 16.9%
I currently pay $3.33 per L/F, equal to $133.20 per month or $1598.40 per year to the CIty of
Newport.
On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly
permit fee (equal to $166.75 per month; $2001 per year).
On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month; $2419.20
per year).
On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month;
$3254.40 per year).
And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month; $4094.40
per year).
On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month; $4934.40 per year) and
last on July 1, 2029 an increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month; $5769.60 per year).
This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of
24.9% and more.
In 2025 alone, I am hit with an increase in my monthly mooring permit of 46.1%. Is this
at all a reasonable fair market rate which you have the duty to fulfill?
On July 1 of 2029 1 would be paying 3.6 times more monthly permit fees than in 2024.
So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029? What is the
logic?
And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on
Balboa Yacht Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025
ONLY 4%? These are numbers from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.
Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa
Yacht Basin rates that the City of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of
interest and a loaded rigged false rate?
Let's do a comparison. I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath
unit with a garage in North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I
want to make money, cover my expense, keep a long-term tenant and be a FAIR
landlord and not abusive. What if I take the same percentages that the City of Newport
is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The first year my tenant would pay
$547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be $7,920 per month. AM
I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU SAME INCREASE?
In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding
Whitlinger of the City Newport; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer
appraisal that should not be adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes
its approach, methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are
some areas where the appraisal would benefit from clarification."
In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion
of the moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed
explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other
factors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those
differences."
I do not see where the Harbor Commission nor the staff addressed these concerns by the
California Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities
to the offshore moorings. Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair
comparison and are glossed over.
If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, which certainly
looks like they will, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council
that destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners,
like me, that will lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's
tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.
This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the
City Council to do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the
offshore mooring permittees rather than set a fair market rate. I strongly encourage you to
NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the
people your serve.
Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their
constituents in a fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
tegy.trombatore&gmail.com
From:
Weigand, Ed
To:
Brown, Leilani
Subject:
Fwd: Vote no offshore morning fee increases
Date:
July 08, 2024 12:36:55 PM
Here's another one.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: kartbin <kartbin@yahoo.com>
Date: July 8, 2024 at 12:17:16 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Vote no offshore morning fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
sende t e content is afe.
Hello Erik,
We respectfully request your vote against offshore morning fee increases at
tomorrow's city council meeting.
There is NO basis for fee increases when no services are provided: Mooring
permittees must service their own moorings, there is no parking, amenities, nor
dinghy storage.
A vote for fee increases will show favoritism toward Harbor Commission
members rather than your loyal constituents.
Please be reasonable, just, and fair and vote for no fee increases.
If anything, fees should decrease.
Appreciatively,
The Baker Family
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
From: Stapleton, Jo
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: FW: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 08, 2024 1:55:13 PM
Attachments: image001.ong
Joe Stapleton
Mayor Pro Tern
Office: (949) 644-3004
87
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with
attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be
subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:14 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
July 8, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council Member, Joe Stapleton
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and the CIty Manager a letter stating
my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.
I reviewed the agenda for the July 9, 2024 meeting and found several documents (A-K) under Ordinance
No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46and 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative
Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings.
It is clear to me that after reviewing all the documents, the intent of the City Council will be to pass this
ordinance and resolution, no matter what public objections will be or have been expressed. There are several
hundred e-mails and letters in Attachment J - Public Comments that oppose this measure, and seem to have
little or no impact of the Harbor Commission or City Council.
There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 2010 that has made the certain passage of the
ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.
So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor Commission.
So let's look at what your decision to pass this ordinance and resolution will mean to me.
Below is data that I extracted from Attachment B from the Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and 2024-47. The chart
is presented to fully understand the percentage of increase that you are imposing on me, as well as the slip
rent increase for Balboa Yacht Basin for the same 40 foot slip analysis comparison.
Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Increase
Year Current Mooring New Mooring
Percentage
Rate per L/F
Proposed
Yacht Basin
Increase for
Rate per L/F
Balboa Yacht
Increase
Under New
Rates per L/F
Basin 40ft Slip Fee
2024
$3.33
$1.25
1/12025
$4.16
24.9%
$1.30 4.0%
7/l/2025
$5.04
21.2%
l/l/2026
$6.78
34.5%
l/l/2027
$8.53
25.8%
l/l/2028
$10.28
20.5%
l/l/2029
$12.02
16.9%
Percentage Balboa
40ft Slip Fee
I currently pay $3.33 per L/F, equal to $133.20 per month or $1598.40 per year to the CIty of Newport.
On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly permit fee
(equal to $166.75 per month; $2001 per year).
On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month; $2419.20 per year).
On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month; $3254.40 per
year).
And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month; $4094.40 per year).
On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month; $4934.40 per year) and last on July 1,
2029 an increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month; $5769.60 per year).
This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of 24.9% and
more.
In 2025 alone, I am hit with an increase in my monthly mooring permit of 46.1%. Is this at all a
reasonable fair market rate which you have the duty to fulfill?
On July 1 of 2029 1 would be paying 3.6 times more monthly permit fees than in 2024.
So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029? What is the logic?
And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on Balboa Yacht
Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025 ONLY 4%? These are numbers
from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.
Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa Yacht Basin
rates that the CIty of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of interest and a loaded rigged
false rate?
Let's do a comparison. I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath unit with a
garage in North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I want to make money,
cover my expense, keep a long-term tenant and be a FAIR landlord and not abusive. What if I take
the same percentages that the City of Newport is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The
first year my tenant would pay $547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be
$7,920 per month. AM I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU SAME
INCREASE?
In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding Whitlinger of
the City Newport; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer appraisal that should not be
adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach, methodologies, and its
recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas where the appraisal would benefit
from clarification."
In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the
moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of
the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors of each comparable, along
with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences."
I do not see where the Harbor Commission nor the staff addressed these concerns by the California
Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities to the offshore moorings.
Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair comparison and are glossed over.
If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, which certainly looks like they
will, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the affordability
and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like me, that will lose the right to own and
operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of
Newport Beach.
This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the City Council to
do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the offshore mooring permittees rather
than set a fair market rate. I strongly encourage you to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave
in place the current rate structure for the people your serve.
Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their constituents in a
fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
teuZ�.trornbatore&gmailxom
From: Jon Kosoff <jonkosoff@yahoo.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting
July 9th, 2024
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
As a Mooring owner I am ashamed and appalled what the Newport Harbor Commission
is trying to do. This isn't fair or just in anyway, and is flat out completely wrong. It is
discrimination, and we appreciate you reviewing the facts of this case.
Currently, the mooring holders pay 4 times more than the affluent waterfront
homeowners for use of the same submerged tidelands. If the proposed rate increase
goes through, the mooring holders will be paying up to Multiple times more than the
affluent waterfront homeowners pay, for use of the exact same tidelands. That's not fair
and it clearly targets and discriminates against people with moorings.
Few more thoughts:
• The Harbor Commission's rate recommendation fails to properly account for the
fact that mooring permit holders pay for their own mooring tackle and
maintenance. The City does not provide the mooring amenity, yet the Harbor
Commission has recommended a dramatic fee increase.
• Moorings are difficult to access and have no electricity. Therefore, mooring
permit rates have historically been a tiny fraction of slip rates given the difficult
access and lack of amenities.
• When updating mooring rates, past practice has been to establish a fair rate and
then peg that rate to CPl for the next 5 years. This gives some certainty to future
rates. This proposal to peg rates to BYB slip rates, giving no certainty to future
rates, is unfair.
• Mooring Permit holders already may much higher rates than other tideland permit
rates. We already pay more than our fair share into the City Tideland Fund. This
significant fee increase is simply not fair or equitable.
• On July 5th the city has posted, for the first time, an alternate recommendation
involving converting private moorings into city owned moorings. This is a
complex recommendation that we are now seeing for the first time without time
for a proper analysis. The mooring permit holders deserve more time to review
and analyze this alternate staff recommendation.
This is how the proposed rate increase will have an impact on me and my family:
As Newport Beach Residents, we recently bought our mooring and saved a long time
do to so. We plan on sharing it with our 3 children for a long time. It took us 3 years to
find the mooring and we had to pay a Significant amount of money up front to buy the
mooring. We did it the right way. And don't think it is fair for this proposed increase
which will crash the value of our investment. More importantly our ability to use the
beautiful harbor with our family and friends.
It is completely wrong and fraudulent. I understand a small cost of living increase and
have no problem paying it but this would essentially make our investment disappear. It
is a complete money grab and discrimination. We have no services on our mooring and
pay for all the maintenance and work done. The appraisal methodology is 100%
flawed, and not fair.
I ask the City Council to please stop this madness. Discrimination can't be tolerated.
We appreciate the City Council to end this discuss asap and protect residents of
Newport Beach against this discrimination and flawed appraisal.
Thank you,
Jon Kosoff
949.309.9969
From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:27 PIVI
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Private use of Public Tidelands and Boats that pay no fee at all!
From: George Hylkema <seeseadragon@yahoo.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office
<CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom,
Noah <N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov; O'Neill, William
<woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Private use of Public Tidelands and Boats that pay no fee at all!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the
content is safe.
Dear Council Member
In a brief cornment* given at both of the last two City Council meetings, I
posed the following question to this Council,
*Do some of the boats in Newport Harbor pay no tideland
fees at all?
Because the Council does not provide responses to questions raised
during one's "public comment", I will, again, ask each of the Council
members a few questions and make a necessary statement.
First. Do you agree that ALL boats in Newport Harbor, when not in use,
use the Public Tidelands in exactly the same way?
Second. Do you agree that ALL boats in Newport Harbor should pay for
this private use of Public Tidelands?
Third. Are you aware that many boats on private docks pay no tideland
fees at all?
Fourth. If so, do you agree that the administrative structure that permits
i� gifts of Public Tidelands" should be revised to correct this error?
Fifth. Do you concur that the requirement in the administration of the
tidelands, as stated below", is relevant to the stated issue here of boats
that pay NO tideland fee at all as well as discrimination against Mooring
Permit Holders?
Sixth. As a Mooring Permit Holder, a 50-year resident of Newport Beach
and a person who strives to be fair in my own dealings, I request that this
Council postpone any vote on Mooring fees that have been presented by
the Harbor Commission in the Tuesday Agenda, and take the time
necessary for careful consideration of the many conflicting issues that are
present. There is much background that the current City Council members
may be unaware of. Much of this important background can be found in a
careful reading of the letter to the Mayor and Council members submitted
today Newport Beach City Council Meeting 7/9/2024 Public Comment Re:
Agenda Item #13 & What is Fair Market Rent by Adam Leverenz
**(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or
any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its
successors shag make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any
use or service in connection therewith.
Thanks for your consideration of these observations.
George Hylkema
Script for 2 minute talk given as comment to last two City Council
Meetings
*Do some of the boats in Newport Harbor pay no tideland fee at all?
Every boat in Newport Harbor uses the public tidelands in exactly the same way. On a sunny day every
boat casts a shadow on the bottom of the bay which outlines its shadow bottom print and its approximate
claim on the tidelands. Whether it is secured to some cleats on a dock or secured to lines attached to
floating buoys and the buoy in turn secured by chains to iron weights on the bottom of the bay there is no
difference in its claim for private use of public tidelands. Every boat then should be paying for the private
use of the public tideland space.
In this familiar slide from NMA below, boats are illustrated at a private dock compared to a boat on an
offshore mooring. The text on the slide notes that for the same number of square feet of dock surface
compared to the same number of square feet determined to be the footprint of a boat on a 40 foot
mooring the dock owner pays $30 per month while the mooring permit holder will pay $480 per month as
a tideland fee. This is actually a dock to boat comparison.
If you look again at the drawing you see that there are two boats, one on each side of the fee paying
wooden dock. These two boats actually pay no tideland fee at all.
Given the non discrimination requirement of the code* under which the City of Newport Beach is granted
administration of the public tidelands the idea that some boat owners pay no fee at all for private use of
the public tidelands is obviously not in compliance with the rules.
(Show NMA slide with dock and two boats compared with mooring)
*Beacon Bay Bill: Granting Statute for the City of Newport Beach Tidelands
Chapter 74 of the Beacon Bay Bill STATUTES OF 1978 page 199
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or
structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges
for any use or service in connection therewith.
L/
From:
Gary George <gary@georgegeneral.com>
Sent:
July 08, 2024 2:24 PM
To:
Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Weigand,
Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; O'Neill, William
Cc:
Danita George; mail@newportmooringassociation.org; Stewards of the
Harbor; Chris Benzen
Subject:
"Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council
Meeting July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dulfururrurrmn—orattach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the
cont
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Gary George, I have a 48'CPMY on mooring A-1 23, it has been a life Long
endeavor to have this type of boat and enjoy the boating life styLe. At age 70, I'm looking at
all of this being taken away due to possible rate increases for reasons beyond my
understanding. Now I hear that there is a pLan to discontinue mooring transferabiLity, a
practice that has long been condoned, managed, enforced and recorded by the city,
incLuding the price paid for rights to transfer said Lease, Is the city going to reimburse all
mooring lease hoLders the current fair market rate in order to change this reLationship?
As has been stated by so many others, having a boat on an off shore mooring is no easy
way of keeping a boat, if fact it is quite difficult to get to and from the moored boat, get
work done outside of having it pulled from the water, etc.
If any of these new rates or ptans take effect, is the city going to provide shore boats, large
working docks, personal hygiene & laundry faciLities, in an quantity capable of serving
"ALL" of the moorings?
When considering the proposed plans in front of you, I ask that you sincereLy be fair
minded to aLL parties involved, please do not vote to impLement any of the current
proposed plans. Let us come to a fair resolution to to the issue at hand.
Thank For Your Consideration
GaryGeo rdam I President
I b,%�
www.georgegenera1.com
C)OC, 0: 951-353-81811 C: 951-204-2538 1 F. 951-353-8184
gavgeorgegenerall.corn
From: Weigand, Eri
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fwd: Mooring Rates & Transferability
Date: July 08, 2024 2:47:51 PM
Here's another one.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andy SWANSON <sixswansons@aol.com>
Date: July 8, 2024 at 2:42:36 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik" <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring Rates & Transferability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the
I safe.
Dear Council Member,
This email is regarding the Newport Beach mooring permit fee appraisal and
proposed rate increase. My name is Andy Swanson and I became a mooring
permittee a little over 2 years ago. Growing up in Southern California I spent a lot
of time in Newport Beach. It has always been my dream to one day have my own
sailboat and keep it in Newport Harbor. After working hard, raising our four
daughters and climbing the career ladder, my wife and I felt we were finally in a
position to make our dreams a reality. Like you, I am a government employee
with a middle class salary. After becoming empty nesters, I began researching
how to become a mooring permit holder. At that time I contacted the Newport
Harbor Department and was told that the only way is to purchase and transfer a
permit from an existing permit holder. I was also told that the average purchase
price was around $ 1000 per foot and that the permit would continue to be
transferable after having it for at least 12 months. So we decided to refinance our
home to purchase our sailboat and a mooring permit. We put a lot of thought and
planning into making this decision. We felt comfortable with the cost of an annual
parking permit, biannual mooring tackle maintenance / inspection and the
monthly mooring fee. As well as the regular boat maintenance cost and dinghy
storage. We also understand that costs go up over time. All that being said, we
feel that the Newport Beach Harbor Commission should be fair in the way they
charge for the use of the tidelands. If the monthly rate of our mooring were to be
raised by such a drastic amount it would create a hardship for us. Potentially
crushing our dreams of spending time with and teaching our children and
grandchildren the joys of sailing. This will not just effect us but also future
generations of boaters. I recently received an email from the harbor department
that ended with this quote. "Thanks for your contributions to maintaining
Newport Harbor as a clean, safe and enjoyable public resource for the entire
communi1y to �o ". I feel that by raising mooring permit fees to the level that
they are unaffordable for the average person would contradict this quote by
making Newport Harbor only enjoyable by the wealthy and not the entire
community. If my wife and I would have known we could possibly be paying
over 4.5 times what the current mooring rates are and would potentially lose the
$40,000 spent purchasing the mooring permit we would have made a different
decision. In a State that is becoming more and more unaffordable, I would ask
that you not do the same with the State Tidelands. Thank you!
Best regards,
The Swanson Family
From: Harr), Aaron
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Date: July 08, 2024 3:25:56 PM
From: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
From: CHRIS BLISS <chrisbliss(@cox. net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe <istapleton(d)newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Avery, Brad <baver)�(@newportbeachca.gDv>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand(@newportbeachca.gov>;
Grant, Robyn <rgrantCcDnewportbeachca.gj2v>; Blom, Noah <N Blom(@ newportbeachca.gov>;
Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman(cDnewportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneiIl(@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Christopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
To:
Newport Beach City Council Members
The press has been invited to witness this spectacle of capitalism at its
finest.
A bunch of wealthy politicians, some of whom live in waterfront homes
with docks, and pay little or no tideland fees at all, are about to give
all the mooring holders a choice:
Accept the city's plan to raise fees to the to a point that after a few years
it will be so expensive that you will be forced out of the harbor. (Never
mind that we get to use the same tidelands for FREE because we
are rich and privileged, and really have no use for middle class
boaters in our harbor).
MM
Accept our "reverse mortgage" plan, in which you can stay on your
mooring longer at the same rate, but at the end, all equity that you may
have in the mooring permit will be gone and the city will "Confiscate" the
mooring and then rent it for a rate that will be unaffordable for most
people. (Never mind that all the wealthy and privileged
homeowners with docks also get to use the same tidelands for
FREE and rent out their docks for PROFIT).
There is a third option:
Please postpone the vote on this matter, sit down face to face in a
meaningful discussion, and let us present the NIVIA plan which will be a
compromise that I'm sure we can all live with.
Thank you.
Christopher Bliss
From:
Fred Fourcher
To:
Der)t - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Cc:
Adriana Fourcher
Subject:
Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.
Date:
July 08, 2024 3:33:22 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments nnles-'�ecocyni7p th,- c,-ncif-r nnd L-nniv thi-
content is s�
Honorable City Council Members,
I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1977 and have had my
mooring off Balboa Island since 1976. 1 am an avid sailor and have a great
appreciation for amazing Harbor.
The proposed rate increase along with the City takeover of the Moorings
without a sound basis. This rate increase is putting the people of Newport
Beach at odds with our elected officials. When the people need to raise a
legal fund to defend themselves from the City then something is terribly
wrong.
If you are not aware of all the flaws in the proposed rate increase, I am sure
you will become aware soon and if the rate increase passes, myself along with
many others will be putting our efforts behind a legal remedy.
Our elected officials should be working for the people and not against the
people who are part of our unique community. A fair and equitable rate
increase is normal. The proposed rate increase and the takeover of the
moorings by the City is completely unfair and uncalled for.
Taking the recommendations from the Staff and the Harbor Commission with
an agenda, based on a flawed appraisal, instead of investigating the
motivation behind the flawed appraisal and resulting recommendation, is
simply poor governance.
Fred & Adriana Fourcher
Cell 714 914 1000
From: Pengalo <pengalo@aol.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Cc: mail@ newportmooringassociation.org
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting
July 9th, 2024
Attachments: 8 July 2024 council meeting.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe
content is safe.
8 July 2024
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I regret that I am unable to attend the Tuesday 7/9/24 meeting in person.
I am writing regarding agenda item #13, Mooring Rates, asking that you NOT adopt the
Harbor Commission recommendations or proposed options, or take any action on these
items at this time.
Instead, as a third -generation property owner on Balboa Island and current shore -
mooring permittee, I ask that you work with the Newport Mooring Association and other
mooring permittees to address the shortcomings in the base Netzger Appraisal and
other shortcomings, inconsistencies, and illogic of the current recommendations.
While the city has a responsibility to determine a fair market rate, there are too many
red -flags around the equity and structure of current proposed rates, their underlying
appraisal methodology and assumptions, and the process by which they were
developed to proceed further with them. While much information has been provided to
the Harbor Commission at many meetings leading up to this point, the Commission has
not been receptive to the community input nor meaningfully responsive to the many
concerns and issues raised.
That being the case, please receive the information, then defer further action as our
elected leaders until you have a full hearing of the concerns and evidence from the
Newport Mooring Association and other interested parties and an opportunity to
collaborate further on modification of the current proposal to create a more fair and
appropriate appraisal, rate, and permit structure.
Thank You!
Peter Leinau, owner
324 Amethyst
Permitee, N145
8 July 2024
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I regret that I am unable to attend the Tuesday 7/9/24 meeting in person.
I am writing regarding agenda item #13, Mooring Rates, asking that you NOT adopt the
Harbor Commission recommendations or proposed options, or take any action on these
items at this time.
Instead, as a third -generation property owner on Balboa Island and current shore -
mooring permittee, I ask that you work with the Newport Mooring Association and other
mooring permittees to address the shortcomings in the base Netzger Appraisal and
other shortcomings, inconsistencies, and illogic of the current recommendations.
While the city has a responsibility to determine a fair market rate there are too many
red -flags around the equity and structure of the current proposed rates, their underlying
appraisal methodology and assumptions, and the process by which they were
developed to proceed further with them. While much information has been provided to
the Harbor Commission at many meetings leading up to this point, the Commission has
not been receptive to the community input nor meaningfully responsive to the many
concerns and issues raised.
That being the case, please receive the information, then defer further action as our
elected leaders until you have a full hearing of the concerns and evidence from the
Newport Mooring Association and other interested parties and an opportunity to
collaborate further on a more fair and appropriate appraisal, rate, and permit structure.
Thank You!
Peter Leinau, owner
324 Amethyst
Permitee, N145
From: L. Scott Karlin
To: Dent - City Council
Cc: City Clerk"s Office; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Eri ; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah;
ikleiman(cbnewr)ortbeachca.ciov; 0"Neill, William
Subject: Written Comment on agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9th 2024
Date: July 08, 2024 4:01:45 PM
Attachments: image.prig
Report on Transferability 7-07-2024 JLK - LSK.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or 2tfiqchment, nnit-.— vnn rgonan;-- +--g-g-A I --
content is safe. 0
What follows is also in the attachment.
Newport Harbor Moorings
Transferability, Affordability, and Responsibility
This report addresses current and past policies on the transfer of mooring permits in
Newport Harbor. The report was originally presented to the City Council in 2015 and was
updated on July 8, 2024. The report first looks at the history of the moorings, and then
addresses how to best honor this history while at the same time increasing accessibility and
affordability of moorings. The report also addresses how to encourage responsible use of the
moorings and the boats on the moorings. The report concludes that the goals of Affordability
and Responsibility are best achieved through an active, unrestricted market, together with the
reduction of the current excessive annual fees being charged by the City of Newport Beach
("City") for the use of moorings. In short, this report finds that, like other goods and services,
a free market with rights to transfer results in affordability and promotes responsibility.
Historical Policy Supports Transfers
Moorings in Newport Harbor were pioneered by early boaters who were encouraged to
contribute to the development of the harbor by establishing moorings that allowed boaters
affordable use of the harbor. These early pioneers experimented with different arrangements
including anchors, weights, single point and double point moorings, and various tackle. Some
things worked, others didn't. Prevailing winds and differing currents in areas of the harbor
were found to affect the accessibility and safety of moorings and boats. Adjustments were
made for tides and the seasonal winds and storms which could come from different directions,
including the occasional Santa Ana winds and winter storms. Equipment was placed, lost,
broken, modified and redone at significant cost to the pioneers of the day, and there was
always the risk of in ury from a boat breaking loose. The establishment of the moorings by
individuals and some yacht clubs was encouraged by agencies having oversight, including the
Federal Government, State Government and City of Newport Beach, all at the risk and
expense of these boating pioneers. (see footnote i)
With the addition of the moorings in the 1930s, boating activities flourished. Tourism
and property values increased significantly, all to the benefit of the local businesses and
property owners, as well as to the benefit of boaters. The sailboat became the symbol of
Newport Beach. Moorings were given formal approval. The City did not question the right
of the person(s) who developed the mooring to transfer his or her right to use the mooring to a
family member, a friend, or another boat owner. No one questioned the rights of those who
received the mooring by transfer to do the same. Yacht clubs were among these early
pioneers. They and other groups were able to establish programs that developed sailing and
boating skills for children, as well as educational programs that developed leadership skills.
In the 1970s, the City of Newport Beach took over the administration of the technical
requirements for moorings and established use fees for boats on moorings. A reasonable fee
was imposed for the use of the harbor and uniform regulations put in place. In doing so, the
City was not charging a fee for something the City or State had developed. The development
had been accomplished by these early pioneers at their risk, expense, and safety, not at the risk
or expense of the City or State.
It is instructive to look at other public resources developed through the permit process.
Permit holders with rights to use public resources have a long and accepted history in this
country, to the benefit of both the permit holder and to the nation. Radio and television
networks, for example, were developed knowing that the airwaves belonged to the public. Oil
and gas exploration is another example of a permitted use on and under public land. Grazing
rights is a third example. Ranchers are allowed the use of public lands for grazing cattle. In
every case, the development by the private sector would not have occurred unless the permit
holder was assured that the permit could be transferred. Because of the great risk inherent in
these early endeavors, the enterprise would never have been attempted by the early pioneers
unless they had the implied understanding that what they developed was transferable to those
who followed. Simply put, without transferability the endeavor would have been a waste of
time.
In connection with these endeavors, the government, of course, had, and has, the right
to ask the permit holders to give back something for the public good. In the case of oil and gas
rights, a fee based on a percent of sales was, and is, charged. In the case of television airway
rights, the station is required to offer programming with public content, such as news, election
coverage, and other public interest services. In the case of moorings, the permittees give back
significantly to the public. They give back by maintaining the equipment available to other
boaters when boaters seek shelter from the sea. They give back by providing moorings for
major events, such as the Newport to Ensenada race, the largest international race in America.
They give back by paying an annual fee to the City. They give back by being the eyes and
ears of the harbor, reporting problems to the City, and the permittees which are yacht clubs
give back with the many educational and childrens' programs, including sailing, boating and
water safety programs. Our system of transferable permits has a long history. It is a win -win
for the government, for the people, and for the permit holders. The denial of transferability to
the pioneers and their transferees is not only contrary to the history and spirit of this great
rsee footnote ii]
enterprise, but the destruction of transfer rights also hurts the City and the public.
The American people have benefited from the private sector's development of public
resources. The few examples mentioned above demonstrate this: the development of radio
and television, the development of oil reserves with the resulting reduction of dependence on
foreign oil, and the availability of affordable meat as a result of grazing rights on public land.
None of these activities are "giveaways". Instead, they are great benefits to the American
people. These public benefits have been achieved at great risk to those early pioneers, and to
those to whom the rights were transferred, and who continue to contribute to the development
and maintenance of these resources. A look at this history provides an understanding of why
transferability of mooring permits is good public policy.
Transferability Promotes Affordable Access
Affordable access to public resources, including access to sailing and boating activities
in Newport Harbor is good public policy, provided that the activity is done safely and
responsibly. While public access is something to be encouraged, it is not a right. Everyone,
for example, does not have the right to own a radio or television station. There are only so
many airwaves and channels. It would not be fair to the pioneers of these resources to lose
their permits, just because some folks think that everyone should have the right to own a
television channel by putting themselves on a waiting list. CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox should
not be required to give up their permits to people on a waiting list who are unwilling to
compensate the networks for the development they, or their predecessors, have done. The
resource is limited. It was the early pioneers who, at great risk, developed these resources.
They did so with the expectation of being able to transfer them in the future. These original
permit holders and their successors should continue to have the right to transfer their permits
provided they follow reasonable regulations regarding the use of moorings.
Affordable access is best achieved by acknowledging, furthering, and encouraging
transferability. Here's how: A holder of a permit with full rights to transfer can transfer his or
her rights to a family member as a gift, or by a sale with full payment at the time of transfer, or
by a sale with a small down payment with payments over time (an installment sale).
On the other hand, when rights to transfer are limited, access is reduced or denied in a
number of ways. First, restrictions on transfer make it unattractive for an individual to acquire
a mooring because the person acquiring the mooring may not be able to transfer the mooring.
This results in fewer moorings available for acquisition. Second, with fewer moorings
available, fewer people will be able to acquire a mooring.
To further illustrate this principle, the current restriction renting moorings by permit
holders substantially reduces the availability of moorings to those who may not have the
ability to acquire a mooring. Renting a mooring is just a form of short-term transfer of the
right to use a mooring. According to the Harbormaster, at any given time there are 120 vacant
moorings, most of which sit idle for years. If the restriction on renting moorings were
eliminated there would be a free market for mooring rentals. This would be far better than the
City renting only a very small supply of moorings. Allowing access to a substantially larger
number of rentals would result in both a dramatic increase in public access to moorings, and
with the expansion of supply, the cost to rent a mooring would go down. The City's current
artificial manipulation of the rental market for moorings restricts access to the public by
artificially reducing the number of moorings available for rent and at the same time driving up
the price of the few available rentals of moorings owned by the City. This point about renting
moorings is mentioned to simply illustrate how restrictions on transfers (a rental being a form
of short-term transfer) results in less access and higher prices to the public.
As mentioned above, putting aside renting a mooring, the transfer of mooring rights
can take many forms. The person transferring the mooring rights could transfer the mooring
to a member of his or her family or could ask a non -family member for a one-time payment, or
he or she could accept payments over time to make the acquisition affordable.
Transferability Means Responsibility
It is a well-known fact that the more a person has a stake in an enterprise, the more
responsible the person will be. The opposite is also true. The lower the stakes, the less one
cares about the enterprise. Pick any human activity to see the principle at work. Pride of
ownership is an established principle. If transfer rights are eliminated, there is little incentive
for mooring owners (i.e. owners of the mooring equipment and the permit rights) to care about
their moorings, or about how they are maintained, or about what boats end up on the
moorings. Problems will result from the devaluation of mooring rights, including issues with
the maintenance of moorings, types and sizes of boats on moorings, possible
equipment/mooring tackle failure, safety, and crime. How safe would it be for a kayak or
paddle board to navigate through a future mooring field where the permittees have little or no
stake in their moorings? Historically, permit holders had the right to transfer, and as a result,
they maintained their boats and their moorings. They had pride of ownership. It is easy to see
that transferability promotes the responsible use of the mooring fields. Surely, the public
good is not served by the elimination of transferability. It is just the opposite - Transferability
means Responsibility.
Transferability Provides Revenue to the City
If transfers are no longer allowed, the City would receive no revenue from transfers.
Allowing transfers means substantial revenue to the City.
Profiting from Mooring Transfers is a Myth
In addressing transferability of moorings, some people have expressed concerns that
transfer of moorings is a form of profiting from a public resource, although the same people
would likely not deny the right of a marina owner to sell his or her marina together with the
transfer of the right to use the tidelands, nor would they deny the right of a homeowner to
transfer the right to the use of the tidelands around his or her dock when selling a waterfront
home, or the right of permit holder for oil and gas extraction on public land to transfer that
permit.
The concern that a mooring holder profits from a public resource when the mooring is
transferred is a myth. While it is true that it is possible that a person could transfer a mooring
for an amount more than what it was acquired for, it's just as true that someone can lose
money on the sale of a mooring. For example, if a person acquired a mooring in 2009, it is
likely they would have paid about $ 1,000 per foot, but if they sold the mooring any time
between 2012 and 2015, it is likely they would have sold it for about $500 per foot, or a 50%
decrease. What is more, if they acquired the mooring in 2009 for $ 1,000 per foot and sold it
this last year, they would have received about the same amount or even less since they would
have to pay the transfer fee, as well as having paid the maintenance, inspection and other costs
of having a mooring for the years before the transfer. If inflation was factored in, the person
transferring the morning would have lost even more money. The concern about profiting from
public resources is simply a myth.
As discussed elsewhere, it is unfair to single out mooring permit holders when almost
every other type of permit holder of a public resource is freely able to transfer their permits in
an open market, including the transfer of permits to use the tidelands by marina owners and by
homeowners with docks.
Conclusion — Transferability Means Access, Affordability, and
Responsibility
The City should not enact any ordinance that would restrict the transferability of
moorings.
Responsibility is a two-way street. The City should acknowledge the debt it owes to
the pioneers who came forward and who risked their time, money, and personal safety to
establish the moorings. This debt should be honored by acknowledging what has always been
known: transferability is fair to those who created the moorings and to those who acquired
the moorings from them.
Avoiding restrictions on transferability also allows more access by the public and
furthers responsible boating and enjoyment of our great harbor.
Respectfully Submitted,
56� ".
L. Scott Karlin
Email: ScottKarlingYahoo.com
Cell: 949-371-8228
Footnote [i]
The article on the next page is from the Newport Harbor Yacht
ClUb 1991 historical documents, referring in part advertisements in the
1930s encouraging individuals to establish moorings in Newport Harbor:
inense ballroom ... large boat locker room
.. � sail loft ... mooring and dock service
under the supervision of Leonard G. Swales
... house manager, Mr. Neal ... house chef,
John Banks.
During this era the Newport Harbor Cham-
ber of Commerce ran a variety of advertise-
mclits in the same magazine, to lure yacht
owners and their wallets to Newport Beach
mith such attractions as:
• Pay no rent to the city for mooring space if
you maintain a private mooring.
• You can keep your boat at your front door
if you own a home at Newport Harbor.
• Ycar-round climate. Warmer ocean water.
Every modern comfort and convenienm
An hour froni Los Angeles.
• Like IlUnicrous other Balboa hollic
owners, Harry J. Bauer of [��mdenj (ClUb
member) takes advantage of the oppor-
tunity offered and keeps his [02400t, all -
steel, topmast schooner Puritanat his frotit
door.
The Log of the Newport Harbor
Yacht Club
There is no record oFa club yearbook, Tosta,
or other official publication from itpq through
1937. The last existine, issue of the dub'sVotor
and Sail yearbook was published in late icn,;.
After that, there appear to have been no club
publications until a new yearbook w;ts pub-
lished in 1937, The annuil Commodore's
Scrapbook and short-lived "Main Brace"
newsletter were launclml in 195o,;md bbrd(hi
The llliiidwas first published in Fcbruiry 19q.
111fific Coast V?, .111ing in,�ganne un a moullily
T 11 E D r 1� 1; 1 , � I o N Y I A V N: I') 'o P) 11
refers to April 1935 issue of Podflc %pper rnagazine
From The Newpon Herbor Ya* Oub, @ 1991 Newport Harbor Yacht Club, Allan Trare- Steve Barnard editors
61
FOOTNOTE (ii). The federal government owns the airwaves and holds these lands, in effect, in a
public trust. In the case of airwaves, they FCC was created by President Roosevelt in the 1930s, and
only requires the permit holders (e.g. CBS, ABC, NBC) to give back to the community, with public
content (e.g. news, election coverage etc). In the case of Oil and Gas, the permittee is required to
give about 12.5% of the selling price of the oil and gas to the government. The system of permits
has a long history and only requires some "give back" by the permit holder.
Regarding permits for Television airwaves: See
hU://chnm.gmu.edu/e2Lploring/20thcentui3�/regulatingtelevision/
The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast
"bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land
belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a
specific frequency. In return, broadcasters had: an obligation to serve the interest of the community.
This obligation requires the licensee to 'ascertain the needs of the community'and then provide
program service to foster public understanding of those issues. How the licensee provides
programming to serve the needs [was] left to the licensee's discretion.
Regarding oil and gas permits, see hLtp:Hewg.orgZoiI and gasZpart2j2h
j2
Since 1982, thefederal government has leased or offeredfor oil and gas drilling 229 million acres of
public andprivate land in 12 western states. Lessees pay a royalty of 12.5 percent to the
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service on the amount or value of the oil or gas
removed or soldfrom each lease.
Some references used in the above article
Bureau of Land Management (BLM LR2000). 2004. Correspondence from BLM to Environmental
Working Group, July 19, 2004.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM Leasing Instructions). 2004. General Oil and Gas Leasing
Instructions. Accessed online May 17, 2004 at htip://www.ut.blm.gov:80/MineralsAd-judication
/general — info.html
Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office (BLM Rawlins Exceptions). 2003-2004.
Wildlife, Greater Sage -grouse & Raptor Winter Range Exceptions to Date, October 1, 2003 to
September 30, 2004. The report was last updated June 18, 2004.
Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office (BLM Pinedale Wildlife Exceptions). 2003.
Wildlife Winter Range Exceptions 2002-2003. The report was last updated December 26, 2002.
Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office (BLM Pinedale Raptor Exceptions 2003). 2003.
Raptor Winter and Nesting Exceptions 2002-2003. The report was last updated August 1, 2003.
From: Jim Palmer
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Request to postpone votes on moorings at 7/9/2024 City Council meeting
Date: July 08, 2024 4:46:57 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
afe.
July 8, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers
Re: City Council Agenda July 9, 2024
Draft Resolution 2024-46 & Draft Resolution 2024-47 Moorings
City Council
First of all, thank you for recognizing the absurdity of the Harbor Commission Draft
Resolution 2024-46 Harbor Commission Recommendations and enabling City Staff to
create Draft Resolution 2024-47 Alternative Fees. Given the short period for review, I
respectfully ask the City Council to not vote on any mooring related resolution at the
July 9, 2024 meeting and postpone any vote on the matter until at least a later
scheduled council meeting.
Jim Palmer
Mooring Permittee
949-433-6512
.0 impalmer8088&gmail.com
From: Admin
To: Deot - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Re: NMA Comments - City Council Meeting Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) - City Council July 9th, 2024
Date: July 08, 2024 4:57:01 PM
r=ERNAL ENMul DO 1NO-m-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
6
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Honorable Council Members,
The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) respectfully opposes both the mooring rate
recommendations put forth by the Harbor Commission (Draft Resolution 2024-46) and
the alternate recommendation proposed by City Staff (Draft Resolution 2024-47). We
believe both resolutions are flawed and very much would Like to partner with City Staff to
work on a resolution amenable to all stakeholders.
Draft Resolution 2024-46 Harbor Commission Mooring Rate Recommendation: The
NMA believes the proposed increase in mooring rates by as much as 500% does not
align with the City's commitment or its Longstanding practice of providing moorings as
an essential and affordable access point to our harbor. Among numerous issues, we find
it unjust to tie rustic (water-onLy) mooring permit rates to the fuLL-service slip rates at
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina, as these are fundamentally different arrangements.
Draft Resolution 2024-47 City Staff Mooring Rate Recommendation: The NMA has not
had sufficient time to carefully analyze the City Staff recommendation, which involves
converting privately owned mooring tackle permits to city -owned mooring Licenses and
establishing new restrictions on transferability despite promises as recently as
November 2023 that permit transferability would remain intact. Further, it appears this
proposal would require mooring holders to eventually surrender their privately owned
mooring tackle to the City. Such a significant proposal warrants a thorough public review
process. We note with concern that this staff proposal was only made available for
public review Less than one business day ago (July 5th). While we appreciate the effort to
provide an alternative to the contentious Harbor Commission recommendation, the
complexity of the staff proposal demands careful public scrutiny. We are particularly
surprised by the suggestion that the City take over all moorings in the harbor, a concept
previously unheard of directly from the City Staff, City Council, or the Harbor
Commission. We seek clarity on the intent and objectives behind this recommendation.
If Council is interested in this alternate recommendation, we respectfully ask Council to
hold a study session on this alternative prior to voting on it.
Discussion: In determining mooring permit rates, it is important to recognize that
mooring permit holders bear the costs related to moorings, including equipment, tackle,
and maintenance. Therefore, a fair mooring rate should reflect the cost of occupying a
small area of water surface, with no additional charges for amenities not provided by the
City. It is unfair and unreasonable to base "water only" mooring permit rates on fuLL-
service marina slips or yacht club mooring rents, which include provided berthing
structure and other amenities not applicable to moorings.
It is worth noting that mooring permit rates are already significantly higher than rates for
most other tideland permits in the harbor. For instance, private pier/dock permit rates
are $0.56 per square foot, while mooring permit rates equate to $1.36 per square foot for
using the same water surface for the same purpose. Furthermore, mooring permit
holders coLLectivelycontribute more to the City tidelands fund than holders of other
permit classifications. In 2023, approximately 750 offshore mooring permit holders
contributed $1,187,000, whereas about 750 residential pier permit holders contributed
only $278,000 to the tidelands fund, which supports harbor activities. This demonstrates
that mooring permit holders already pay more than their fair share of permit fees both
individually and collectively.
The Newport Mooring Association has expressed significant concerns regarding the
flawed appraisal and methodology used to develop the Harbor Commission's
recommendation, as detailed in the Letter sent to the Harbor Commission on February
14th, 2024.
We respectfully ask Council to direct staff to workwith the stakeholders on finding
common ground on the mooring rates in Newport Harbor.
Thank you for considering our concerns regarding the proposed mooring rate
adjustments. We recognize and appreciate recent efforts by Mayor O'NeiI.I. and Mayor
Pro Tem Stapleton to connect with NMA board members, and respectfully request the
Council's continued careful deliberation on this matter to ensure fair and equitable
outcomes for all stakeholders involved.
Sincerely,
The Newport Mooring Association Board of Directors
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Keith Garrison <keith@gbfenterprises.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:19 PIVI
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: Cheryl Nowak; Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Newport Mooring Fee Increases? No!
bear Wi I I,
You represent me as a Newport Beach resident who lives on Island Avenue, and I am a mooring
holder A-241. If these increases get approved I will be forced to sell my boat and attempt to
sell my mooring which will now have no value. I sincerely ask you to vote no.
With best regards,
Keith Garrison
PS. I believe that there will be many lawsuits facing the city as well.
Keith Garrison - VP/Gen. Mqr.
GBF Enterprises, Inc.
2709 Holladay St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
714-979-7131 Fax 714-979-1815
www.qbfenterprises.com
('ert if ied
e--N
VBENC
mwn's Business Enterprise,
The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary and could be subject to U.5. Export Laws and/or contra I led by the U5
International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAP) 22 CFP 120-130. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this emai I has been
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this document and you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
dissemination, reproduction, or further viewing of this email without permission from the author is strictly prohibited. C7131' Enterprises Inc.
takes no responsibility, either direct or indirect, or any unauthorized dissemination of such data or materials
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Steven Legere <stevenwlegere@aol.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:24 PIVI
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Moring rate rip off
Sent from my Phone
Mulvey, Jennifer I
From: kathryn777 <kathryn777@aol.com>
Sent: July 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Mooring hikes
Councitmember WoneiLt,
I'LL make this brief. PLease reconsider the unf air rate hike on the moorings. At the very Least, the rates
shouLd be made in smaLl increments. Please be the voice of reason that so many of the residents voted
for.
Kathryn O'NeaL
Seiit from my Verizon, Sarisung Galaxy smartphone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: moo owen <redowenl@yahoo.com>
Sent: July 06, 2024 11:14 AM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Back Archive Move Delete Spam Vote no on Newport Beach Mooring fees increase and
alternative mooring fee schedule which would convert all mooring permits into city
licenses
7 't �' nKZ 40
ERNA "I" C"k tinks or attach t�nents �Qss �ou , r . e 'C"O� sei?der and'knOlAf the CO
ROT C 6
Please vote NO on these proposed rate increases in Newport Harbor but work with the
community to develop a fair solution for all boaters. These increases will only be affordable to
the rich and take away the opportunity of boat ownership and enjoyment for everyone
else. Please vote no on the rate increases, don't take the dreams and opportunities away from
others because they aren't rich enough to own a mooring to keep a boat. Not everyone can
own a Bayfront home with a private dock, moorings are a more affordable alternative for
everyone else.
Thank you for helping us out by voting No on the proposed rate increase.
A. Owen
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 8:40 AM
To: O'Neill, William <woneiIl@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Moorings
I take confiscation of individuaL's assets by governments very seriousLy!
On Jut 7, 2024, at 8:18 AM, O'Neil.l., WilLiam <woneiLL(a)newportbeachca.go > wrote:
Received and the tone is noted.
Mayor Will O'Neill[
woneiL[Pnewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 8:02 AM, Mark Sork <.msork(a)sorkcompany.com> wrote:
Ok... I know you're new to this town. I'll. try to expLain how it works.
The rights of mooring permit holders have always included the right to
transfer the mooring at a price agreeabLe to the buyer and setter. HistoricalLy,
this price averaged around $1000 per foot with higher prices for Larger
moorings.
As a part of the transfer process the City requires and confirms the amount
that was paid by the buyer for the permit. It is on the City's transfer
appLication. The City has no defense in attempting to state they are not
involved in the process of funds transferred.
You can quibbLe aLL you want with investment or expenditure but you can't
deny your actions wiL[ intentionaLLy harm the permit hoLders ... manyfor
generations.
These resoLutions are a disgrace to members of the boating community!
On Jut 7, 2024, at 7:46 AM, O'NeiLL, WiLtiam
<wonei0a)newportbeachca.90 >wrote:
Mulvey, Jennifer I
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork <msork@sorkcompany.com>
Sent: J u ly 07, 2024 8:02 AM
To: O'Neill, William <woneilI@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Moorings
Ok... I know you're new to this town. I'LL try to exp[ain how it works.
The rights of mooring permit hoLders have always included the right to transfer the mooring at a price
agreeabLe to the buyer and seLLer. Historicatty, this price averaged around $1000 per foot with higher
prices for Larger moorings.
As a part of the transfer process the City requires and confirms the amount that was paid by the buyer for
the permit. It is on the City's transfer appLication. The City has no defense in attempting to state they are
not involved in the process of funds transferred.
You can quibbLe aLL you want with investment or expenditure but you can't deny your actions wiLL
intentionaLly harm the permit hoLders ... many for generations.
These resolutions are a disgrace to members of the boating community!
On JuL 7, 2024, at 7:46 AM, O'NeiLL, William <woneill(cbnewportbeachca.go > wrote:
If it's an expenditure, why woutd it be wiped out if you'd be getting the access to the
mooring?
Mayor Will O'Neffi
woneiLL(c-onewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 7:45 AM, Mark Sork <msork(cbsorkcompany.com> wrote:
Expenditure if that works better for you.
On JuL 7, 2024, at 7:41 AM, O'NeiLL, WiLLiam
<woneiLL(a)newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Investment?
Mayor WiLL O'NeiLl
woneitt(@newportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 7:38 AM, Mark Sork
<msork(a)sorkcompany.com> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Sork
<msork0bsorkcompany.com>
Date: July 5, 2024 at 2:26:14 PM
PDT
To: woneiLt(@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moorings
H i,
I am in the process of purchasing
an offshore mooring. I have
previously owned moorings over
the Last 40 years.
In reading the city's proposal to
eliminate permits and convert to
licenses it appears that in 2028 1
would no longer have the ability to
transfer the mooring ... essentially
wiping out my investment. Is this
true?
Respectfully,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.
Balboa Island, CA 92662
949-500-0148
2
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo <mikeromomg@gmail.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 1:10 PM
To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
I appreciate your follow-through. Thank you for your service.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrig(W-gmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 1:08 PM, O'NeiL[, WiLLiam <wonei[L(@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Thankyou. I shouLd have incLuded a
Link: https://newportbeach.Legistarl.com/newportbeach/meetings/2024/7/3726 A City C
ouncil. 24-07-09 Agenda. pdf?id=49052434-01 e6-4573-a924-9064c 115091 d
Mayor Will O'Neill
wonei[L(,'Onewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 1:06 PM, Michael Romo <mikeromomgPgmaiL.com>
wrote:
I appreciate your considerate response. Obviously, I haven't read the staff
report but it would seem the Harbor Commission's recommendation might
have been a better approach.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrigAmmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:59 PM, O'Neill, William
<woneill(anewportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Got it. You may want to read through the staff report. The harbor
commission did recommend a phased -in increase. And our staff is
recommending something different.
Will O'Neill
Newport Beach Mayor
From: Michael Romo <mikeromomg(agmaiL.com>
Date: Sunday, JuLy 7, 2024 at 12:50 PM
To: O'Nei[L, WiLLiam <woneiLL(a)newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
You may find either one of these options a more palatable
solution than a one-time huge increase. If you are saying a rate
increase hasn't happened in a Longtime, a more gradual
increase that is equitable and based on a quantifiabLe
measure, such as the annual cost of Living percentage or the
rate of inflation.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomqCd-gmaill.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On JuL 7, 2024, at 12:43 PM, O'NeiLL, William
<woneil.1.650newportbeachca.go >wrote:
Well, that hasn't happened in a Longtime.
Mayor Will O'NeilL
woneiLL(cbnewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On JuL 7, 2024, at 12:36 PM,
Michael Romo
<mikeromomg(a)9maiL.com>
wrote:
A rate increase calculated on the
basis of the cost of living for
Orange County or the annual rate
of infLation.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrig(ftmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
Mu Ivey, Jennifer I
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo <mikeromomg@gmail.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 12:51 PM
To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
You may find either one of these options a more palatabte solution than a one-time huge increase. If you
are saying a rate increase hasn't happened in a tong time, a more gradual increase that is equitabte and
based on a quantifiabLe measure, such as the annual, cost of Living percentage or the rate of infLation.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomq�D_qmailxom
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:43 PIVI, O'Neitt, William <woneiLL(anewportbeachca.gov> wrote:
WeR, that hasn't happened in a longtime.
Mayor Will O'Neitt
woneill(J5bnewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 12:36 PIVI, Michael, Romo <mikeromom9((PgmaiI..com>
wrote:
A rate increase calcuLated on the basis of the cost of Living for Orange County
or the annual rate of infLation.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomcd-Damail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jut 7, 2024, at 12:26 PIVI, O'Neil.l., WiLliam
<woneiI.I.Pnewportbeachca.gov> wrote:
What do you personaLly beLieve a fair soLution wouLd be?
Mayor Wilt O'Neitt
wone i UP newpo rtbea c hca. go
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:23 PM, Michael Romo
<Mikeromomg(E-bgmail.com> wrote:
I am a home owner on Balboa Island and have the
privilege of an onshore mooring that has been in my
family since 1958. We have kept the mooring
maintained faithfully and I pay my property taxes
promptly.
I urge you to vote no on the proposed grossly
unfairly large mooring rate increases and to work
with the community to develop a fair solution.
Respectfully,
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomg(R-gmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Please Vote NO: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
From: Matt Trenton <rnatttrenton@yahoo.corn>
Sent: July 07, 2024 5:48 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov; jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov;
eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; rgrant@newportbeachca.gov; nblom@newportbeachca.gov;
Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Please Vote NO: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
Dear City Council Members —
I am writing this email regarding the potential mooring rate increase that has been a subject of
discussion at Harbor Committee public hearings for several months now. I understand that the City
Council may be voting on the potential rate increase sometime in the near future.
I have attended several Harbor Committee meetings during the past months. There have been
several mooring permittees that have attended these meetings as well. I strongly urge you to
reconsider the proposed rate increase recommended by the Harbor Committee. While I have heard
numerous individuals speak up to ask the committee to reconsider their stance, I did not witness any
individuals in support of the proposed rate increase.
The Harbor Committee was presented with an assessment from one of the largest real estate firms in
the world (CBRE) and fails to recognize their findings. These findings were dramatically different
from the report that the Harbor Committee is using for their recommendation. The Committee has
formed a recommendation from the single opinion of an individual that does not appear to have
significant credentials to provide an assessment. It is hard to believe that such a dramatic decision
would be based off one single opinion.
The Harbor Committee has repeatedly stated that it is their requirement, by law, to impose fair rental
rates for moorings. However, the current monthly assessment for mooring permittees is 6x the rate
that is paid by pier/dock permittees which fall under the same tidal lands governance. If the proposed
mooring rates are accepted, this would skyrocket to somewhere around 25x the rate for pier/dock
permittees. It is demeaning to listen to the Committee discuss how this rate increase is fair and part
of their requirements whereas pier/dock permittees fall under the same tidal lands 'fair market rate'
requirements.
I trust that you are fully informed of the details regarding this significant decision and hope that you
request the Harbor Commission reconsider their proposal. I do not feel that any mooring permittees
are opposed to a reasonable rate increase but the current proposal to quintuple rates within the next
few years is implausible.
Thank you for your consideration,
Matt Trenton
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: natalie fogarty <nataliefogarty5@gmail.com>
Sent: July 07, 2024 4:46 PIVI
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: mooring rates
Have read the 2 appraisaLs and information provided by moorinh association and Chris Benson. I imagine
their information is correct?
Thank for you response!
NataLie Fogarty
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, 4:30 PIVI O'Neill, WiLLiam <woneiLL(q)newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
To be fair, the City Council hasn't decided anything yet.
But before responding, have you had a chance to read the staff report?
Will O'Neill
Newport Beach Mayor
From: natatie fogarty <nataLiefogarty5(�bgmaiL.com>
Date: Sunday, JuLy 7, 2024 at 4:19 PM
To: O'Nei[L, WiLLiam <woneiL[(a)newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: mooring rates
I guess that the council is determined to put mooring rates out of
reach to current mooring holders that are moderate income
individuals. I see that the council wants more affluent people to
populate the area and good Luck to the others. Please Let other
members realize this.
N ata li e f oga rty
I
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Tina Richards <Tina@fittogobytina.corn>
Sent: July 08, 2024 2:01 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Hi
I voted for you
Thought conservative guywil.l. do the right thing
I was cdm ambassador Lived here 54 yrs
I know a Lot of peopLe
This mooring hike raise is outLandish
It's not fair
If one then aU
BaLboa Island dock owners
Yacht cLub owners
Why is it mooring issue
Thank u for being kind
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Carter Harrington <charrington@lee-associates.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 2:33 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov;jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov;
bavery@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov;
rgrant@newportbeachca.gov; nblom@newportbeachca.gov;
Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th,
2024.
Team
PLease do notvote on these proposed rate increases and workwith the communityto deveLop a fair and equitabLe
solution.
The goal of the city should be to maintain a boating environmentthat everyone can afford, notjust
miLtionaires. This couLd destroy the fabric of the community with generations of boating famiLies that will be
eLiminated by a fautty subjective appraisal. that wouLd never hold up in court as objective.
PLease consider the objective CBRE appraisal not the subjective Netzer appraisal. We are open to increases that
are fair and justified with reat worLd data. The Appraisal was done as directed by the City -Scott
Cunningham. Emails confirm, having two phone catLs with the Appraiser, "I've had two Long conversations with
Jim regarding the 2016 Mooring Appraisal. The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appraisal results wilL
took much different than the 2016 numbers." There are many more incriminating emails.
Mooring Permit hol.clers atready may much higher rates than other ticleLand permit rates, inctuding docks. This is
textbook discrimination. We already pay more than our fair share into the City TicleLand Fund. This significant fee
increase is simpty not fair or equitabLe. Gifting of pubLic Lands that surround the docks. On average a dock owner
pays $12-30 per month for docking a boat over the same submerged tideLands
The harbor master won't discuss these issues as he is recused from the issue. Howisthisfair?
Ptease can we discuss a fair solution to make it a win -win?
Cawfer Harringtorn
Senior Vice President I Principal
Lee & Associates I Newport Beach
D 949.724.4710
C 949.202.9439
0 949.724.1000
charringtonCa)_Iee-associates.com
LEE &
ASSOCIATES
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
NEWPORT BEACH
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Christian Romo <cromol4@gmail.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:51 PM
To: jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov;
eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; rgrant@newportbeachca.gov;
nblom@newportbeachca.gov; Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov;
woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: Christian Romo
Subject: Please vote no at tomorrow's meeting re: Mooring Rate Increase
Dear Newport Beach City Council Representative,
My name is Christian Romo, and I am writing to you to respectfully urge you to vote no at tomorrow's
meeting regarding the Mooring Rate Increase petition.
My Grandparents bought their Balboa Island home in 1958. 1 was blessed to have spent summers down there
since I was a small child. My Grandfather worked very hard to properly and diligently maintain the mooring
that he was fortunate to purchase for his sons, my father and late uncle.
As such, we were able to moor our small boat (a Kite) and sail it every day during our vacations. It was
because of this mooring that I learned to sail, which grew into a lifelong passion of mine.
My family is one of the few original families on the island. We pay our taxes promptly; we maintain our home
and property and that extends to the diligent care and maintenance my Dad devotes to our mooring. Every year
my Dad does the hard work necessary to make sure our mooring is in tip-top shape. My brothers and I would
like to continue that tradition.
But this proposed rate increase could very well make this intention a distinct impossibility. Such an exorbitant
increase will make it difficult for my generation to afford the mooring.
Please consider other revenue streams or at least work with the community on a plan that won't break the bank
of old -school islanders like my family.
Please vote no on this unfair rate increase.
Your respectfully,
Christian Romo
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Dr. Richard A. Navarro <professorrnavarro@gmail.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 4:11 PM
To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item No. 13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024
10TERNAL EMAIL] DO N01'CLICK links or . a, I tt r a c - I . i m I ents untess you r r e , cogniz(-., the sender and kn6wthe
24-0840 - Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dr. Richard Navarro, Ph.D.
Mooring C-72
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item No. 13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9,
2024
Date: July 8, 2024
The City of Newport Beach manages the tidelands in Newport Harbor pursuant to State of California
statutes. Therefore, the City CounciL is accountabLe to all CaLifornia citizens, not just the residents of
Newport Beach in administering the tidetands.
I write today as a CaLifornia citizen who is deeply concerned with the mismanagement in estabLishing fair
market vaLue (FMV) of private uses of pubLic tidelands, discrimination in rates paid by users (in some
cases gifting), and disregard for goodgovernance by sLipping into Resolution 2024-47 a significant
change Mooring Permit Transfers without adequate pubLic input or a reasonable period to consider the
proposal.
Therefore, I strongly urge the City Council, to reject ResoLution 2024-46, Resollution 2024-47, and
Ordinance 2024-15. Furthermore, I urge the City Council, to meet with representatives of the Newport
Mooring Association, and other stakeholders to achieve a fair, nondiscriminatory pLan for managing
pubLic tidetands for aL1 users.
For your further edification, I would Like to make the following comments on the Staff Report.
1 . The City may charge different rates for different uses when it is supported by an appraisal that
makes distinctions in value (page 2, paragraph 6).
Comment: Currently, dock permits are a quarter of offshore mooring permits. Are docks vaLued
less than moorings? CLearly, docks are much more vaLuable, yet the permit rates do no reftect
FMV for aLL uses. The City shouLd require an appraisaL FMV for docks and establish dock permit
rates accordingly.
2. While the Beacon Bay Bill does not define discrimination, staff interprets that charging
different rates for the same type of use that does not have a different value ... would be
discrimination in rates and is prohibited by the SLC (page 2, paragraph 6).
Comment: Under both Resolutions 2024-46 and 2024-47, Yacht Clubs and the LICA receive a
different rate for the same type of use that does not have a different value and therefore
constitutes discrimination according to the Staff's interpretation.
3. —charging less than fair market value to any individual or entityprivately using the public
tidelands would be a gift of public funds orgift of public lands and is prohibited (page 2, paragraph
7).
Comment: Dock permitees pay only for the public tidelands covered by the docks, not the boats
tied to the docks. The gift of public tidelands covered by the boats tied to the docks constitute a
gift of public funds or gift of public lands and is prohibited. The SLC, in the April 9, 2024, Letter
highlighted this discrepancy and advised the City to address it.
4. ...the rate fora 40-footmooring was set at $36.45 per linear footpermonth, compared to the
rate of $1.67per linear footper month in effect when the 2010 Resolution was approved (page 3,
paragraph 7).
Comment: This is an error. Staff may have meant per annum rather than per month.
5. Comment: Page 4, Harbor Commission Consideration, omits reference to the methodology
used to determine FMV in 2016 by Netzer & Associates, which was rejected in 2023 by the same
appraiser with possible conflicts of interests, Leading to accusations of a flawed and curated
appraisal to achieve a predetermined outcome by some members of the Harbor Commission.
6. Comment: The City's response to the Grand Jury has been 14% of the Newport Harbor
Marina Index set for 5-years with annual adjustments based on the CPI. Resolution 2024-46
would adjust rates annually by 24% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index, significantly escalating
annual rate increases. This amendment was slipped into the Harbor Commission
recommendation at the April meeting without public notice or discussion and exemplifies unfair
governance and undermines public trust.
Thank you for your consideration.
Richard A. Navarro, Ph.D.
+1 909 263-3881 (Mobile)
professorrnavarro(agmaiL.com
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Shawn Maxwell <shawnrnaxwell1987@grnail.corn>
Sent: July 08, 2024 6:15 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov; jstapieton@newportbeachca.gov;
bavery@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov;
rgrant@newportbeachca.gov; nblom@newportbeachca.gov;
lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Fabric of Newport (Moorings)
Hello,
This will be the most impactful and remembered decision you make as an elected council member, The electors
will remember.
Please do not vote on these proposed rate increases and work with the community to develop a fair and
equitable solution.
The goal of the city should be to maintain a boating environment that everyone can afford, not just
millionaires. This will destroy the fabric of the community with generations of boating families that will
be eliminated by a faulty subjective appraisal that would never hold up in court as objective.
Please consider the objective CBRE appraisal not the subjective Netzer appraisal. We are open to increases that
are fair and justified with real world data. The Appraisal was done as directed by the City - Scott
Cunningham. Emails confirm, having two phone calls with the Appraiser, "I've had two long conversations
with Jim regarding the 2016 Mooring Appraisal. The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appraisal
results will look much different than the 2016 numbers."
Mooring Permit holders already may have much higher rates than other tideland permit rates, including
docks. This is textbook discrimination. We already pay more than our fair share into the City Tideland Fund.
This significant fee increase is simply not fair or equitable. Gifting of public lands that surround the docks. On
average a dock owner pays $12-30 per month for docking a boat over the same submerged tidelands
The harbor master won't discuss these issues as he is recused from the issue. How is this fair?
Please can we discuss a fair solution to make it a win -win?
Sincerely,
Shawn Maxwell
4th Generation Balboa Island Resident
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: potenza04@aol.com
Sent: July 08, 2024 6:40 PM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Mooring Fee Increase; Please read
OK Thanks
On Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 04:34:57 PM PDT, O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Every email sent to the City Council is a public record. There is no anonymity in that.
� ri�f . �-
Newport Beach Mayor
From: potenza04@aol.com <potenza04@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 2:15 PM
To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: potenza04@aol.com <potenza04@aol.com>
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase; Please read
I know this is a little long but please take the time to read it.
Please keep me anonymous to the Harbor Department. I'm fearful of retaliation for what I'm sending you.
Please do not allow these outrageous, unfair and unwarranted Mooring Fee Increases of over 400%.
I have been a Mooring Permit (MP) holder in good standing for over 40 years. My family and I have long appreciated the
ability to enjoy boating made possible by reasonable IVIP rates. I have dragged my 8 foot dinghy across the sand all
these years knowing that was normal for the ability to access a mooring. I'm now in my 70s so it's harder every year but
I still do it so our family can enjoy boating.
My wife and I are retired and absolutely cannot afford these unreasonable rate increases. We'd be forced to sell our
boat and I'm sure many other MP holders will be too. Selling in a market where there will be many, many boats for sale
will be a long process, if even possible, with the new rates and non -transferability for the buyers. We had hoped to keep
the boat and MP in the family forever. My dad and I built most of the boat and she's a beautiful boat.
Appraisals and Fair Rates
The appraiser the Harbor Commission used is comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare Tidelands with
moorings to Real Estate with Tidelands, Marinas which operate for profit and Yacht Clubs which entice more members
to join and gain financial benefits? When compared to all other mooring fields in California we are in line with their rates,
as the Mooring Association appraisal demonstrates. Apples to apples!
The Harbor Commissions appraiser states that rates are being increased in a San Diego mooring field but that turns out
to be untrue!
When comparing Tidelands use for docks we pay much more per square foot or linear foot than houses with docks. I
believe their docks can be rented creating a financial gain. I've seen them advertised through the years. Your appraiser
states there is a market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it's illegal and puts the Permit
holders at risk of losing their MP. The vast, vast majority of us abide by this rule. Don't punish us for the few that
don't. Of course comparing Marinas to moorings is absurd. They have many amenities that moorings don't and operate
for profit.
Transfer -ability
Transfer -ability is critical when you need to sell a boat on a mooring. The rule has always been that the MP was
transferable as long as you sold a qualifying boat moored on it. The city has allowed this rule to be bent or even
bypassed for many, many years now. This created a market for mooring sales that should not have been
allowed. Please don't punish those of us who have always followed the rules. Someday we will have to sell our boats
and removing transfer -ability and charging these outrageous rates will make it almost impossible.
Building an Unnecessary Bureaucracy
The reason I want to remain anonymous to the Harbor Department is for fear of reprisal because of what I'm
about to state. I know that the Harbor Department is a very small part of the City Budget and may not get much
attention. However they are building a very large and unnecessary Bureaucracy. In FY 24 their Total Operating
Budget cost the city $2,445,960. Their Salaries and Benefits alone were $1,521,414. They have gone from 3 Full
Time Employees and 9.39 Part Time in FY 23 to 9 Full Time and 4.29 Part Time in FY 24. Their FY 25 proposed
budget is $2,817,875. This will be a 59% increase since FY 22. Like I said I've been around here a long time and
although I don't know the exact cost from when the Sheriff's Department ran the moorings for the city but I'm
certain it wasn't and still wouldn't cost anywhere near this amount. A number that has been brought up was
$300,000. There has been little improvement since the Harbor Department took over vs. when the Sheriffs
managed the harbor. The Harbor Department was doing a fine job when their budget was at 1.77 million in FY
23. Is it really worth spending this exorbitant amount of our Tax Payer Money when they were more than
adequate before?
Doing the Right Thing
This would be like telling someone renting an apartment from you that you're increasing their rent by 4 to 5
times. Obviously they would have no option but to leave in almost every case. Be reasonable basing rates on the CPI is
fair. I learned we were using the CPI or 2% whichever is lower. It should have been based on the CPI only. Going back
to 2016 when this rate formula was adopted and using just the CPI not the 2% to create new more fair rates would be
the right thing to do.
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Dave Gubser <clavegubser23@gmail.corn>
Sent: July 08, 2024 7:22 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: July9, 2024 Council Meeting on Mooring Changes
Mr. C)'NeiL
We mooring owners are exhausted over the Last three (3) years attending mul.tipLe meetings with the
Harbor Commission reviewing their stated mission to after the fee structure for their affordabLe boats.
This wil.l. subject many Long-term medium tier mooring owners' abiLity to enjoy and utiLize the beautiful,
Newport Harbor surroundings. To date ALL these meetings, studies and mooring owners'testimony have
been excLusiveLy directed to establishing new on -shore and off -shore mooring fees. We have had a
community wide participation and many public reviews and comments that have resuLted in "proposed"
new fees for those mooring categories. If this proposed rate structure is approved by the City Council. in
the July 9 meeting it wiLL, when fully impLemented, raise those rates 500% over the City's current fee
scheduLe. This wil.l. be a serious risk to any affordabLe "non -mega yacht", boat owner's abil.ity to enjoy the
harbor and offshore ocean waters.
NOW on JuLy 5 1 received from our Newport Mooring Association the there is now a "new rider" nameLy
Attachment K which is an alternate recommendation involving converting private moorings into city
owned moorings. This is a complex recommendation that we are now seeing for the first time without
time for a proper analysis.
The mooring permit holders deserve more time to review and analyze this alternate staff
recommendation. I do not understand how such a major structure of individual permit ownership which
has been forever in place since its inception can be unliterally changed thus wiping out its permit asset
vaLue to the current owner with the City taking it over. There has been NO community participation nor
public comment period to review the ramifications and impact to the permit hoLder. THIS MUST NOT
PROCEED.
Dave Gubser- Island Resident
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Scott Rimland <scottr@cardinaldevelopment.com>
Sent: J u ly 08, 2024 7:54 PM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Mooring Rate Increase
Dear Mayor O'Neill,
I'm a 58-year resident of Newport Beach and a big fan of yours! Thanks for your hard work and being such
a great representative of Newport Beach!
Please vote no against the mooring rate increase being considered by the council on July 9, 2024. It
makes no sense and does appear discriminatory to have different tidelands rates for docks/piers, yacht
club moorings and private mooring Licenses or sub leases. In addition, basing mooring rates off rates for
docks in the Newport Basin makes no sense. I was a tenant in Newport Yacht Basin for 15 years untiLwe
recently bought a Larger boat and a mooring. A dock is far superior to a mooring, it's almost impossible to
compare the two. Yes, they are both places to store a boat but that's about it. I know your busy, so I
won't make this a two -page Letter detailing the many differences. 24% of the price of a dock for a
mooring rent is very unfair. In addition, the council appears to beset to consider altering the
transferability of moorings which was never discussed at the Harbor Commission meetings prior to this.
At the very Least this item should be postponed or delayed so its impact can be fully understood.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Regards,
Scott RimLand
1621 Ruth Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
714-904-1934
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Chase Corum <chase.corum@cityexperiences.com>
Sent: July 08, 2024 8:56 PM
To: Chase Corum
Subject: Mooring Rate Increase -- Thoughts and Considerations
Council. Members,
I hope this e-mail, finds you we[[.
I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed mooring rate increase by the Harbor Commission.
As residents of Newport Beach and mooring owners ourselves, my family enjoy the benefits of affordable and
accessible boating. Ensuring reasonable and affordabLe mooring rates is crucial for supporting continued access
to marine activities for many residents. By keeping the rates manageable, the City can encourage more peopLe to
enjoy our beautiful harbor and coastLine, fostering a vibrant community and a strong local. economy.
WhiLe I understand the desire to increase revenue, I hope the City Council. will. consider a more reasonable rate
structure than that proposed by the Harbor Commission at this time. Striking a baLance that benefits boat owners,
as well as the financial. interests of the City, ensures that everyone can experience the joys of Newport Beach's
maritime offerings without significant financial barriers.
Thank you for your consideration. I took forward to attending tomorrow's council meeting.
Best regards,
Chase Corurn
Port Captain, Newport Beach / Greater Los Angeles
City Cruises Anchored by Hornblower
949-629-5457
chase.corum@cityexperiences.cot-n
cityexperiences.corn
2527 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92663
I 1�j -
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Gaile Oslapas <gailuteo@gmail.com>
Sent: July 09, 2024 9:46 AM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I respectfully request your vote against offshore morning fee increases at tomorrow's city council meeting.
There is NO basis for fee increases when no services are provided: Mooring permittees must service their own moorings,
there is no parking, amenities, nor dinghy storage.
A vote for fee increases will show favoritism toward Harbor Commission members rather than your loyal constituents.
Please be reasonable, just, and fair and vote for no fee increases.
if anything, fees should decrease.
Gailute
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rich Stanley < rstanleyl 1 @yahoo.com >
Sent: July 09, 2024 10:07 AM
To: woneiII@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Mooring Increase Bill
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Morning,
Please vote "no" on tonight's mooring increase bill. Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Rich Stanley B-131
Sent from my iPhone
Mulvey, Jennifer I
From: Erin Stanley <erinstanleyl 1 @yahoo.corn>
Sent: July 09, 2024 10:08 AM
To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: No on Mooring Increase
PLease vote No!
Erin Stanley
13131
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: scott allen <scotthallen@icloud.com>
Sent: July 09, 2024 11:08 AM
To: woneiII@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Changes to mooring rates and policies
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor O'Neill,
There will be a vote tonight on the harbor department's suggested changes to mooring rates and policies concerning
transferability.
The harbors department's changes seem unfair as it only applies to the private mooring permits and not the yacht clubs
not does it address the inequity of the dock owner fees.
Please vote no on this or table the decisions until the various disputes can be addressed.
Thank you for your consideration. I enjoy your morning mayor's discussion with Poorman on KOCL.
Scott Allen
204 Amethyst
Balboa Island
7144699647
Mulvey, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mayor Will O'Neill
Newport Beach City Council
O'Neill, William
July 09, 2024 11:21 AM
Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
FW: Following Up
NMA Proposal July 9, 2024 docx.pdf
From: Anne Stenton <anstenton@gmait.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 10:49 AM
To: jerryttapointe@gmail.com <jerryt[apointe@gmait.com>
Cc: O'NeiL[, William <wonei1l.@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Foltowing Up
Good Morning Mayor ONeill,
Attached is an updated draft proposal I submitted to Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton. Please note we would
need board approval on a final draft before moving forward.
Respectfully,
Anne
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:17 PM <-ierryt[apointe(d)gmaiL.com> wrote:
Thankyou for note. Anne and I appreciate your time and tookforward to workingwith you and the rest of city
council to find a soLution.
Best,
Jerry LaPointe
949-697-0685
I
From: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.go >
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Anne Stenton <anstenton@gmail.com>
Cc: Jerry LaPointe <0errVtlapointe@gmaiI.com>
Subject: Re: Following Up
Jerry I hope you are feeling ok
Mayor WilL O'NeilL
woneill(cbnewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 8, 2024, at 3:43 PM, Anne Stenton <anstenton(a)gmai[.com> wrote:
11EXTERNAL NAILi DO NOT CLICK links or attach ments unless' you recognize the'sendet' and know the
content is safe.
Good afternoon Mayor O'Neill,
I'd like to include Jerry in this meeting, but he is unfortunately testing positive
for Covid. Would it be possible to set up a zoom call for tomorrow at 11:oo instead?
Here is a link if that works for you:
https://us04web.zoom.uslj/76100484.r,lg?pwd=08nmovFBa23FQFuxxrWOOGQbGB2
LiV. 1
2
Thank you,
Anne
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 8:47 AM Anne Stenton <anstenton(d)gmail.com> wrote:
Great, thank you. I will see you Tuesday at 11:00.
Anne
On Jul 7, 2024, at 8:20 PM, O'Neill, William
<vvoneill(cbnewportbeachca.gov> wrote:
I am availabte at 11 am on Tuesday if you'd Like to meet again.
Mayor Will ONeill
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
woneill@newportbeachca.go
Newport Mooring Association
JULY 9, 2024
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mayor O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, and Esteemed City Council Members;
The Newport Mooring Association understands that the subject of mooring permits
and rate increases is on the agenda for the July 9th, 2024, City Council meeting. We
appreciate the opportunity to speak with some council members this week and discuss
potential alternatives to the substantial rate increases and rate structure originally
proposed by the Harbor Commission in January 2024. The Newport Mooring
Association would like more time to collaborate with the City on a potential solution
that provides additional revenue for the City but does not unfairly target mooring
holders as a specific group of tideland users.
One option that we may be able to support as an alternative to the proposed plans
Would be the following:
• A one-time "catch up" fee that brings up mooring rates with the average increase
in slip fees in the harbor over the past 6 years. For example:
o Slips, on average, have increased 41 % over the past 6 years (Netzer, 2023)
o Moorings have increased 12% over the past 6 years (2% per year)
o Therefore, a one-time increase of 29% of what mooring fees were in 2016
would bring moorings in line with slip rent increases
• A cap on mooring permit sales at $1 000/ft and protection of mooring permit
transferability as it exists today
• An agreement that fee increases for the next 5 years would increase in step with
CPI
• An agreement not to change the rate methodology adopted in 2016. Ratio to dock
rate remains at 11 %.
• Agreement that ALL mooring permits, including those controlled by Yacht Clubs,
will be subject to the same increases at the same time
• Agreement to improve in -the -water dinghy dock access for mooring permittees
We would like to reiterate that transferability does not translate to profit. Removing
transferability unfairly targets mooring permittees and can be viewed as discrimination,
since other tidelands users, including homeowners with pier permits, may transfer their
permits. Additionally, it is well established that other tidelands users do profit from the
use of public tidelands (fuel docks, yacht clubs, etc). We don't have an issue with this,
but we do not wish to be treated differently.
We appreciate that the city is considering alternative plans. The NIVIA's option would
begin generating additional revenue for the city within the year, without the
responsibility of taking over the moorings, as opposed to the City staff's program which
would see stalled income on mooring permits not transferred.
In summary, we believe maintaining the status quo for mooring permits has benefits
for the city:
The City can continue to collect transfer fees
The City can continue to collect monthly fees
The City has no financial responsibility for maintaining moorings
The City can continue to reassess mooring rates
Adjusting current rates can improve income with no cost to the City
The city can build and maintain a positive relationship with mooring holders
We look forward to connecting with you on this issue moving forward.
Sincerely,
Anne Stenton
President, Newport Mooring Association
mail@newportmooringassociation.org
(949) 872-9415
r)
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: July 09, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Attachments: Newport Mooring Rate Comment Letter.docx.pdf
From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:00:29 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <a harp@ newportbeachca.gov>; Wooding, Lauren
<LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>
Sent: July 09, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Hi Jaime,
I've attached the Coastal Commission's comment Letter in response to the proposed action on the
Newport Beach Mooring Rates. Please Let me know if you have questions or issues opening the PDF.
Thanks so much for giving us the opportunity to submit comments.
Amrita Spencer I District Manager
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 Ocean Blvd. Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
1
From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Good evening Jaime,
Just wanted to let you know that our staff is fin a lizingourcom me nt letter forth e mooring rates. We wiLl.
have that sent over tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. Thanks.
Amrita Spencer I District Manager
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 Ocean Blvd. Suite 300
Long Beach, CA
90802
(562) S90-5071
From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.go >
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 3:21 PM
To: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.go >
Subject: RE: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Typically the reports go out Friday the week before the meeting (July 5th). But given the holiday, we are trying to get
the reports done early. There is a stight chance they get released on July V, but not positive.
From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>
Sent: June 19, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
RNAL EMAIL) DO NoT CUCK links or attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and knowthe qqp��!jtf�� safe.. .
Hi again Jaime,
Sorry for the muttipLe emaiLs. I wanted to fol.Low up with you on a separate thread about the mooring rates
issue. I was wondering whether you might be abLe to share when the staff recommendation for rates
might be posted for pubLic comment? I want to make sure that we submit our response in a timeLy
manner for the City's consideration.
Thanks,
Amrita Spencer I District Supervisor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GoVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4325
VOICE (562) 590-5071
July 9, 2024
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Seimone Jurjis
100 Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
Re: Concerns About The City of Newport Beach's Proposed Mooring Rental Rate
Increase in Newport Harbor
Dear Mr. Jurjis,
I am writing to you regarding the City of Newport Beach's ("City") proposed mooring
rental rate increase in Newport Harbor, as recommended by the Newport Harbor
Commission ("Harbor Commission") on April 10, 2024. Several members of the public,
specifically mooring permittees, have expressed concerns to Coastal Commission
("Commission") staff regarding the proposed rate increase. Since Commission staff
became aware of these concerns, we have met with the City, Newport Mooring
Association, and State Lands Commission to gain a deeper understanding of the basis
of the proposed rate increase. As a result, Commission staff recommend that the City
delay implementation of any mooring rental rate increase to allow more time to consider
these concerns, including those raised below.
Fee Discrepancy
The Harbor Commission's current recommendation proposes an increase to both
onshore and offshore mooring rental rates to charge fair market rent', noting that these
rates were last updated in 2016, which have been adjusted annually by the lesser of 2%
or the change in the cost of living pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Currently, rental rates are set at $1.67 per lineal foot per month for onshore moorings,
and $3.34 per lineal foot per month for offshore moorings. The recommended increase
for a 40-foot offshore mooring, the most common of moorings in Newport Harbor, would
increase from $3.34 per lineal foot per month to $12.02 over a more than five-year
period. This represents an approximately 360% increase in rental rates. Simultaneously,
the City informed Commission staff that similar to mooring rental rates, private slip rental
rates are also not consistent with fair market rent. However, no rental rate increase has
been proposed to adjust private slip rental rates at this time.
Commission staff are concerned that the discrepancy between mooring rental rates and
private slip rental rates may impose unequitable access to recreational boating in
1 Commission staff were informed from the City and State Lands Commission that the City is required to
charge fair market rental rates for both moorings and private slips. In a letter to the City dated April 9,
2024, State Lands Commission noted that charging less than fair market rates for the use and occupation
of granted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift of public trust funds.
Newport Harbor. Given this concern, Commission staff recommend that the City analyze
the fair market rent rate for private slips and develop a proposal to simultaneously
implement the updated rental rates for both moorings and private slips to resolve this
discrepancy and ensure equitable access to recreational boating activities in Newport
Harbor.
Equitable Access Program
The Harbor Commission's proposed rental rate increase of approximately 360% over a
more than five-year period may impose financial hardship on some mooring permittees.
This additionally may result in unequitable access to recreational boating in Newport
Harbor for individuals who are unable to afford the increased rates. The Harbor
Commission's recommendation identifies a phased approach beginning on January 1,
2025, including six proportionate increases over nearly a six -year period. Furthermore,
the City's staff report dated July 9, 2024 proposes an alternative recommendation to the
Harbor Commission's, which would allow existing permittees to maintain their current
rates, subject to annual CPI adjustments.
While Commission staff support phased implementation in an effort to mitigate financial
hardship for existing permit holders, this approach does not fully address concerns
about the financial burden associated with holding a permit and ensuring equitable
access to the Harbor. To address this concern, Commission staff recommend that the
City consider the feasibility of a program to support equitable access to recreational
boating in Newport Harbor by low-income individuals.
Permit Transfers
In addition to concerns related to the proposed rental rate increase, Commission staff
are concerned that the private sale/transfer of permits further impedes access to
recreational boating in Newport Harbor for all people. More specifically, this structure
creates a significant cost to entry. According to the City's records, the price paid for 16
mooring permit sales in 2024 (ranging from 18 feet to 50 feet) ranged between $20,000
and $55,000. Furthermore, this structure also allows the transfer of mooring permits to
friends and family in perpetuity. This imposes a barrier to entry given mooring permits
may be held and transferred among friends and family, thus restricting the entry of new
users. Commission staff note the City's staff report identifies at least one method to
address this issue and are encouraged the City is considering ways to reduce barriers
to entry in order to expand access to more users.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Commission staff remain committed to
supporting the City to ensure equitable access to recreational boating in Newport
Harbor.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
D781AF30CEOC4F5
Amrita Spencer
District Manager
California Coastal Commission
cc: Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, CCC
Karl Schwing, Deputy Director, South Coast District- OC,CCC
Shannon Vaughn, District Manager, CCC
Jeffrey Palm, Coastal Program Analyst, CCC
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: J u ly 09, 2024 1:04 P M
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July
9th, 2024
From: dale@newportwestproperties.com <dale@newportwestproperties.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:04:11 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah
< N Blom@ newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik
<eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Stapleton, Joe
<jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
As a Newport Harbor offshore mooring holder for more than thirty-five years, I have been amazed to
read the arguments made by the appraiser trying to support his conclusion that offshore mooring fees
should be equivalent to, or even greater, than dock slip rates charged by marinas in Newport Harbor.
The issue appears to be moving rapidly towards litigation. I am hopeful sanity prevails on the part of
the City Council, and hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars will not be wasted on legal fees trying
to justify a position that is clearly nonsensical.
You don't have to be a boater to quickly realize that in a free market system, mooring fees have to be
far less than slip rentals to compensate for the great disparity in conditions. A quick comparison of the
huge differences in the boating experience of someone with a boat at a shoreside dock vs an offshore
mooring proves the point.
Marinas offer parking, restrooms, fresh water for both drinking and boat wash -downs, and electricit
to power on board systems, including refrigeration. None of that is available to mooring holders.
Think for a moment what it is like to have a boat on an offshore mooring. To begin with, when you
want to go to your boat you can't walk, ride your bike, or take any type of vehicle you may choose.
You must have a vehicle that permits you to carry a dingy, so you can get from the shore to your
boat. Then you have to load your dingy onto your vehicle, travel to the general area of your mooring
and look for a parking space, which if you are not lucky can take considerable time and may not be
close to where your dingy can be launched for transport to your moored boat. Then you have to move
your dingy to the launch point and row to your mooring.
Washing the boat to remove bird droppings is a constant need, and on a mooring can be physically
exhausting. Unlike a marina, there is no endless supply of water coming through a hose with a high
pressure nozzle, so droppings can be blasted away. Wash water on a mooring comes from bucket
after bucket manually hauled from the bay up to the deck using a hand line. The pressure to remove
the bird droppings doesn't come from a high-pressure nozzle, but by manual scrubbing with a deck
brush.
The same big disparity exists when it comes to the availability of electricity. At a marina, slip electricity
is always available to power an onboard lighting, a refrigerator, television, computer and any of the
various electrical ly-powered appliances and tools we use so often. On a mooring, electrical needs
must be met by onboard generator or charging the onboard batteries by running the main engine.
Solar power isn't a realistic option, since most boats don't have the deck space to permanently mount
an adequate number of solar panels to provide significant electrical generation.
Offshore mooring rates should continue to be assessed as a small percentage of the average of
marina dock fees for a similar boat size. This seems reasonable and acknowledges the differences
between the two, as referenced above. To argue that somehow keeping a boat on an offshore
mooring should be the same or more than keeping a boat at a slip in a marina is crazy talk and
cannot be defended.
In terms of transferability, mooring holders must be able to sell their boats and transfer their mooring
interest. Likewise, they must be able to transfer the boat title and mooring interest to a family
member.
Thank you! —
Dale Falasco
Property Owner/Offshore Mooring Holder
243 Ocean View Ave.
Newport Beach
Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: July 09, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024
Attachments: CBRE Appraisal - Offshore Mooring Fields 2024.pdf, variance report with note added
July 9.pdf
From: Admin <mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:39:07 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityC]erk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Written Comment on Agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024
1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is saf
Dear Mayor O'NeiLL and Esteemed City Council Members,
Attached are some materia Is you may find informative regarding the mooring rate issue on the agenda for
tonight. We appreciate the time and effort it takes to consider these issues and welcome an opportunity
to discuss this information with you at a future date.
Item #11: Independently commissioned CBRE appraisal
(Indicates existing mooring rates are in line with fair market mooring rates)
Item #2: Variance Report
(Indicates significant variance in City's appraisal from 2016 vs 2023 relative to mooring rates)
RespectfulLy,
Newport Mooring Association
CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
rl
L
6AZM-
APPftAISAL
REPORT
NEWPORT HARBOR OFFSHORE MOORING FIELDS -
TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES
NEWPORT HARBOR
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92662
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.
CBRE
VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
CBRE
February 12, 2024
Mr. L. Scott Karlin
Policy and Legal Affairs on behalf of Newport Mooring Association, Inc.
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. Box 1118
Newport Beach, California 92659
RE: Appraisal of: Newport Harbor Offshore Mooring Fields - Tidelands Fair Use Fees
Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, Orange County, California
Dear Mr. Karlin:
At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the market rental
value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report.
The subject property consists of the State-owned State of California Tidelands submerged in
Newport Harbor that are currently utilized to accommodate individual offshore moorings. The
Tidelands are currently held in Trust by the City of Newport Beach. There are approximately 740
offshore moorings, approximately 579 of which are In mooring fields A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J and
K, and which excludes approximately 79 moorings in the Balboa Yacht Club mooring field and
73 moorings in the Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field which are not administrated by the
City. The Harbor Patrol also has 6 moorings.
Although requested, updated precise sourced detailed information including the exact number of
moorings, intended boat length for each mooring, and the amount of tidelands encumbered or
utilized within each mooring field for use by individual moorings was not available. We have
estimated / filled in any missing data and figures based on available information including
mooring area maps, 6 years of detailed mooring transfer logs, Landvision aerial measuring tool,
and calculations based on typical vessel sizes and mooring equipment. From these resources we
have estimated 579 moorings in 9 mooring fields ranging from 18 moorings to 133
moorings, with average intended boat lengths ranging from 40' to 50' and average beam
(width) of 15 feet, each of which is extended on average 12 feet from the boat to the buoy at the
bow, and 12 feet from the stern to the stern buoy. In the case of mooring using only one buoy,
the extra area at the stern would not be added. The mooring fields within which the individual
moorings are located comprise lust over 82 acres of tidelands. Note that we independently
estimated the area of the mooring fields with an aerial measuring tool which indicated actual
mooring fields of around 73 acres; however, the Harbor Depa rtment-provided -data was relied
upon for the purposes of the appraisal, despite being unsourced. The areas within the mooring
fields outside the areas occupied by, or which could be occupied by a vessel on the individual
moorings is not an area used exclusively by the owners of vessels on the individual moorings.
These areas are generally used by the public inclusive of kayakers, paddle boarders, small craft
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
Mr. L. Scott Karlin
February 12, 2024
Page 2
such as Duffy Boats, as well as the occasional use by the owner of a vessel using a tender to
access an individual mooring.
Our analysis is of the tidelands used by the individual moorings within the mooring fields. Actual
fees or fair market rent would vary from mooring to mooring. For example, a mooring on the
perimeter of a moorings field would have superior unobstructed views, easier access, and/or
mooring fields are closer to the harbor entrance, etc. This, however, is offset by a generally
inferior mooring which may be very far from the harbor entrance, have difficult or crowded
access, be located near a gas dock or a "louder" area in the harbor, etc. Accordingly, for this
assignment, and in order to provide as balanced and equitable an analysis of the tidelands
in a harbor -wide context as possible, we based the valuation of market rent for the subject
tidelands upon a "typical" mooring.
Based on the analysis contained in the following report, and certain assumptions based on the
typical area of tidelands used by a vessel on a mooring, and the lack of additional services or
areas of tidelands available to mooring holders to access these moorings, the market value of the
subject is concluded as follows:
TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES / FAIR MARKET RENT
Annual Rent per 40'
Mooring Based on
Market Rent / Lineal Foot 1,326SF of Tidelands
YR for Tidelands used for individual
Appraisal Premise Date of Value ($3.36 LF per mo) mooring
As Is January 15, 2024 $41.00 $1,640
Compiled by CBRE
Summary Table — Various Size Moorings
Mooring Size
Sq Ft with
AnnualFee
AnnualFee
AnnualFee
Max Swing
Per Lineal
Based on Sq
Per Lineal Foot
Factor
Foot
Ft Tidelands
(rounded to full
(rounded to
(without
dollar)
full dollar)
Rounding)
30
843
$35
$1,045.32
$1,050
40
1,326
$41
$1,644.24
$1,640
50
1,857
$46
$2,302.68
$2,300
60
2,322
$48
$2,879.28
$2,880
70
2,840
$50
$3,521.60
$3,500
If the City was to provide additional services to provide access to the moorings (such as shore
boat service) or set aside areas of the tidelands for reasonable access to the moorings (such as in
water motorized dinghy/tender boat dockage), an adjustment in the value may be appropriate,
F, ZIml=
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
Mr. L. Scott Karlin
February 12, 2024
Page 3
depending on the nature and extent of such additional services or additional tideland used for
such access.
The report, in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of,
and inseparable from, this letter.
The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed,
and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were
developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and
recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),
and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
The intended use and user of our report are specifically identified in our report as agreed upon in
our contract for services and/or reliance language found in the report. As a condition to being
granted the status of an intended user, any intended user who has not entered into a written
agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of our report agrees to be bound by the terms
and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the client who ordered the report. No other
use or user of the report is permitted by any other party for any other purpose. Dissemination of
this report by any party to any non -intended users does not extend reliance to any such party,
and CBRE will not be responsible for any unauthorized use of or reliance upon the report, its
conclusions or contents (or any portion thereof).
It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the
analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
Robert Jacobson, MAI
Executive Vice President
California State Certification No. AG035731
Expiration Date: July 7, 2025
r ZIml=
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
Certification
Certification
We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1 . The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial and unbiased
professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
3. We have no present or prospective interest in or bias with respect to the property that is the
subject of this report and have no personal interest in or bias with respect to the parties
involved with this assignment.
4. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
5. Our compensation for completing this assignment Is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the
amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a
subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
6. This appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, a specific
valuation, or the approval of a loan.
7. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared,
in conformity with the 2024 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as well as
the requirements of the State of California.
8. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review
by its duly authorized representatives.
10. As of the date of this report, Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has completed the continuing education
program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.
11. Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of
this report.
12. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this
report.
13. Valuation & Advisory Services operates as an independent economic entity within CBRE, Inc.
Although employees of other CBRE, Inc. divisions may be contacted as a part of our routine
market research investigations, absolute client confidentiality and privacy were maintained at
all times with regard to this assignment without conflict of interest.
14. Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other
capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period
immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.
Robert Jacobson, MAI
California State Certification No. AG03573
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. I CBRE
Harbor Map
A—W F=
P—p—t st.ti..
Pbli, D.ck
Fet,y Crossj"
V/2 M..rr,, Sit-
H.rb.r P.—I
C.—yH.rb.r.�e
VRNONG
EAS I N
NE WP 0 R T
PIER
MAP OF NEWPORT HARBOR AND MOORING FIELDS
City of Newport Beach
1 —1 ------- L_____1
bo
C0AS`T-HW-Y-
I I Z1111 A
K, # _" , r
HARBOR
iSiAND
A�!c�hcir6ge COLIMS
iStANDA
Newport Harbor is a No -Wake Harbor!
The Sp"d Lmt is 5 mph
Upp�r and Lower Newport Bay am No Discharge Zones.
L) umpOng tma ted and un treated boar sewage. 1� N�ega;
Warningi Vndarwafar submat9ed ;Ines -
Do n-1 �ros-� fh,q.-qt) Mooring am,as.
Harbor Related Contact Informatlom
NORTH
STAR
DEACJq
QO
NEWPORT
1) U N ES
CYA
A A
BAtROA BALBOA DE
C�ry of Newport Saach Harbor Mastar, S49-270-8159 Emergoncy: Ga
or VH F Radio Channel I 9A
Orange County Sheriff Harbor Fialrol� 949-T23-1002 orVHF Radio Cti 16 Hoag Hospital; G40-7e4-4e24 W F.
R port Beach Lifequardz 949-604-3047 Sea Tow: 562-592-2800 or VHF Ch. 16
.I.W.port Beach Fire Department- q4q-644-�511 pi-911 Tow8cal US! 949-278-3207orVHF Ch. 10 +
U'S d - 310-521-BCIDO or VHF Radic,Ohahnel 16 off st—a 24 Hr_ Crime Tip Hot Line: 800-550-6273 THE
C.—t G—r WEDGE M
ON I C h—ic .1 and S.W. 9 � Spil I Newport Beach Weather, 949-675-GS03
Call Buth N . mloem W116e
Califorkiia Office of Emergency Responae� (800) OILS911 (645-7911) 1 mh - 1.382 r�
Nationa I Response Center: (800) 424-8&02
Newport Dunts Launch Ramp Info: http:ilwww.dbw.ca.goylBoatinqFacilitiesIDeta[15�997
9 2024 CBRE, Inc. I CBRE
SIG
CORONA
Moorina Field A from west
Mooring Field C from west
Moorinq Field B from west
Moorina Field A from east
k V26
t-
Mooring Field C from east
Moorinq Field G from north
=11=
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Property Name
Location
Client
Highest and Best Use
As If Vacant
As Improved
Property Rights Appraised
Date of Report
Date of Inspection
Submerged Tidelands Area
Mooring Fields
Moorings
Utilized Average Mooring Size
Concluded Tidelands SF / Lineal Boat Mooring Size
Tidelands Attributable / 40' Boat
VALUATION
Newport Harbor Offshore Mooring Fields - Tidelands
Fair Use Fees
Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
92662
Newport Mooring Association, Inc.
Offshore Mooring Use
Offshore Mooring Use
Leased Fee Interest
January 31, 2024
January 15, 2024
81.583 AC
9
579
40'
33 SF
1,326 SF
Rent Per Year
Market Rent As Is On January 15, 2024
California State Tidelands Commission Methodology $1,613
Inflation Methodology Based on City's Prior Benchmark $1,670
Ratio Method $1,920
3,553,765 SF
TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES / FAIR MARKET RENT
Market Rent / Lineal Annual Rent per 40'
Foot / YR for Mooring Based on 1,326SF
Tidelands of Tidelands used for
Appraisal Premise Date of Value ($3.36 LF per mo) individual mooring
As Is January 15, 2024 $41.00 $1,640
Compiled by CBRE
(�) 2024 CBRE, Inc. III CBRE
Executive Summary
Market Rates for Moorings - Other Sizes
Based on Methodologies Used in This Report the Value per Square Foot is $1.24 per Square Foot
of Tidelands Used Per Annum. The square foot valuation would not change in relation to the size
of mooring, only the square foot used and resulting adjustment to the total rate would change.
Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30
+
24
x
12
648
40
+
28
x
15
1,020
50
+
34
x
17
1,428
60
+
34
X
19
1,786
70
+
34
x
21
2,184
Rates without a Swing Factor
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
Total Sq Ft
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
X
648
$803.52
$26.79
40
1,020
X
1,020
$1,264.80
$31.62
50
1,428
X
1,428
$1,770.72
$35.42
60
1 1,786
1 X
1,786
$2,214.64
$36.91
70
1 2,184
1 x
2,184
$2,708.16
$38.69
Add Swinq Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
778
$964.72
$32.16
40
1,020
x
1,224
$1,517.76
$37.95
50
1,428
x
1,714
$2,125.36
$42.51
60
1,786
x
2,144
$2,658.56
$44.31
70
2,184
X
2,621
$3,250.04
$46.43
Add Swina Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
810
$1,004.40
$33.48
40
1020
X
1,275
$1,581.00
$39.53
50
1428
x
1,785
$2,213.40
$44.27
60
1 1786
1 X
2,233
$2,768.92
$46.15
70
1 2184
1 x
2,730
$3,385.20
$48.36
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. iv CBRE
Executive Summary
Add Swina Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
X
843
$1,045.32
$34.85
40
1,020
X
1,326
$1,644.24
$41.11
50
1,428
X
1,857
$2,302.68
$46.06
60
1,786
X
2,322
$2,879.28
$47.99
70
2,184
X
2,840
$3,521.60
$50.31
* Variations with Summary results from rounding square foot calculations.
@ 2024 CBRE, Inc. CBRE
Executive Summary
MARKET VOLATILITY
We draw your attention to a combination of inflationary pressures (leading to higher interest
rates) and recent failures/stress in banking systems which have significantly increased the
potential for constrained credit markets, negative capital value movements and enhanced
volatility in property markets over the short -to -medium term.
Experience has shown that consumer and investor behavior can quickly change during periods of
such heightened volatility. Lending or investment decisions should reflect this heightened level of
volatility and the potential for deteriorating market conditions.
It is important to note that the conclusions set out in this report are valid as at the valuation date
only. Where appropriate, we recommend that the valuation is closely monitored, as we continue
to track how markets respond to evolving events.
CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
At its December 2023 meeting, the Federal Reserve held the federal funds rate at a range of
5.25% to 5.50% and indicated it will continue reducing its balance sheet by $95 billion per
month. The Fed reaffirmed its commitment to lowering inflation to its 2.00% target, while also
acknowledging that risks (inflation vs. growth) have become more balanced.
Despite headline inflation remaining above the Fed's 2.00% target, core inflation, which excludes
food and energy prices, has steadily decreased over the past 12 months. The recent run-up in the
1 0-year Treasury yield has further tightened financial conditions, which will continue to suppress
economic growth and inflation. Commercial real estate investment activity is unlikely to improve
until capital sources are confident that interest rates have stabilized, and pricing has fully
adjusted.
While opinions vary on future economic issues, the general market consensus at the time of this
appraisal is the anticipation of moderating inflation as higher interest rates cool demand. Tighter
lending conditions and a weakening economy will keep capital markets activity subdued and
reduce leasing demand in the short to medium term. Amid this uncertain and dynamic
environment, investment market performance will be uneven across property types.
Local Impact
Note that while Newport Beach Harbor and its users are somewhat uniquely more insulated from
broader changes in prevailing economic conditions due to the level of affluence surrounding the
area and harbor, current economics and market fundamentals of harbor -related operations were
artificially turbocharged due to the COVID-1 9 lockdowns and restrictions set forth by government
throughout California. The lockdowns spurred boat usage and harbor demand in dramatic
fashion during 2020 and 2021. As will be illustrated in the market analysis section, this artificial
demand has waned with the COVID- 19 pandemic, lockdowns, and operation restrictions behind
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. Vi CBRE
Executive Summary
us, there is market evidence of a contraction in the boating market. In addition, we are currently
facing unprecedented economic headwinds with the Fed raising rates over 500 basis points since
April 2022, which historically has never been seen. This is intended and is anticipated to
U unwind" much of the (again artificially imposed) COVID-19 pandemic era inflationary gains
(increases in market rent and compression of rates of return).
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS
An extraordinary assumption is defined as "an assignment -specific assumption as of the effective
date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter
the appraiser's opinions or conclusions." '
0 We have utilized the number of moorings, intended / assigned lineal foot capacity per
mooring, and the amount of tidelands attributable to each mooring field based on multiple
sources, the primary of which was the Newport Harbor Department mooring summary sheet.
This summary sheet was provided by the Harbor Department but was unsourced. Although
requested, a full detailed comprehensive list of this information including actual surveyed
tidelands areas was not provided / available. Also of importance but which was not available
is the intended lineal boat capacity for each mooring. The appraiser is not a licensed
surveyor. It 'is recommended that a professional tidelands survey be performed by a certified
licensed surveyor and reliable source for all / average lineal foot mooring capacity for the
mooring fields in question prior to making a business decision. The appraiser has made his
best effort to accurately estimate these figures as relied upon in the following analysis. We
reserve the right to amend our opinion of fair market rent if actual encumbered tidelands
areas and lineal boat capacities vary from those figures utilized in the appraisal.
The use of extraordinary assumptions might have affected assignment results.
HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS
A hypothetical condition is defined as "a condition, directly related to a specific assignment,
which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the
assignment results, but is used for the purposes of analysis." '
0 None noted
OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY HISTORY
Title to the subject tidelands is currently vested in the State of California, in Trust to the City of
Newport Beach.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no ownership transfer of the property during the
previous three years, nor any other marketing activity of unsolicited offers, and the subject is not
currently listed for or pending sale.
1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024
2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. Vii CBRE
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Certification......................................................................................................................... i
ExecutiveSummary .............................................................................................................
iii
Tableof Contents ..............................................................................................................
viii
Scopeof Work .....................................................................................................................
1
NeighborhoodAnalysis .......................................................................................................
9
SubjectAnalysis ................................................................................................................
10
Zoning..............................................................................................................................
13
MarketAnalysis .................................................................................................................
14
Highestand Best Use ........................................................................................................
16
Fair Market Rent Analysis ..................................................................................................
17
Reconciliation of Market Rent ............................................................................................
31
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................
33
ADDENDA
A General Data
B Appraiser License
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. Viii CBRE
Scope of Work
Scope of Work
This Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under
Standards Rule 2 of USPAP. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in
which research is conducted, data are gathered, and analysis is applied.
INTENDED USE OF REPORT
This appraisal is to be used for internal purposes related to discussions with the governing
authority regarding increasing fees payable by mooring owners, and no other use is permitted.
CLIENT
The client is Newport Mooring Association, Inc.
INTENDED USER OF REPORT
This appraisal Is to be used by Newport Mooring Association, Inc., and no other user may rely on
our report unless as specifically indicated in the report.
Intended Users - the intended user is the person (or entity) who the appraiser intends
will use the results of the appraisal. The client may provide the appraiser with
information about other potential users of the appraisal, but the appraiser ultimately
determines who the appropriate users are given the appraisal problem to be solved.
Identifying the intended users is necessary so that the appraiser can report the
opinions and conclusions developed in the appraisal in a manner that is clear and
understandable to the intended users. Parties who receive or might receive a copy of
the appraisal are not necessarily intended users. The appraiser's responsibility is to the
intended users identified in the report, not to all readers of the appraisal report. '
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate fair use fees / fair market rent for the subject
property.
DEFINITION OF VALUE
There is no specific definition of Fair Market Rent. However, Market Rent is considered to be
synonymous with Fair Market Rent for the purpose of this appraisal. Fair Market Rent is defined in
the Sixth Edition (2015) of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as: "The most probable rent
that a property should bring in a competitive and open market reflecting the conditions and
restrictions of a specified lease agreement, including the rental adjustment and revaluation,
permitted uses, use restrictions, expense obligations, term, concessions, renewal and purchase
options, and tenant improvements (Tls)."
3 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, I 4th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), 50.
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. I CBRE
Scope of Work
INTEREST APPRAISED
The value estimated represents fair market rent, not an ownership interest such as fee simple or
leased fee. Therefore, the concept of ownership interest is not applicable in this assignment.
Extent to Which the Property is Identified
The property is identified through the following sources:
• various mapping software and records
• physical inspection
Extent to Which the Property is Inspected
We inspected the subject property as well as the surrounding environs on the effective date of the
appraisal. The inspection included various aerial and mapping resources, as well as a physical
inspection around and throughout the harbor.
Type and Extent of the Data Researched
CBRE reviewed the following:
• various public resources
• comparable data
previous market studies and appraisals
Type and Extent of Analysis Applied
CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal
methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value. The
steps required to complete each approach are discussed in the methodology section.
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. CBRE
Scope of Work
Data Resources Utilized in the Analysis
DATA SOURCES
Item: Source(s):
Subject Encumbered Tidelands Area Information Provided by Newport Harbor Department, LanclVision
Aerial Measuring Tool
Number of Moorings Information Provided by Newport Harbor Department (indicates 6
more moorings than the mooring field harbor maps)
Mooring Capacity / Lineal Boat Feet Public Record Mooring Transfer Logs June 2017 thru October 2022,
per Mooring Field LanclVision Aerial Measuring Tool
Compiled by CBRE
APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY
In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the
property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available.
METHODOLOGY APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT
In performing our market rental analysis, we have performed a rent comparable or paired rent
analysis for available harbors in California that offer both slip and mooring options for boaters.
These harbors are in San Diego, Morro Bay, Monterey Bay/Santa Cruz, and Half Moon Bay. We
have incorporated this methodology into the market standard State of California employed
methodology described below.
The Benchmark analysis is employed consistently throughout California by the California State
Lands Commission. This is a common practice utilizing benchmarks which are used to establish
uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with large concentrations of similar facilities,
mostly private recreational improvements within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5).) Within this analysis, it will be necessary to determine what income
can typically be generated by a commercial marina / typical boat slip; the area occupied by a
mooring in a well -designed harbor; what the rental charge would be for a typical sized boat; and
the rate of return the state should receive for the use of its land. The "Commission typically
charges 5% to 6% of gross income for boat berthing for sites leased to commercial marina
operators, with most of the leases set at 5% of gross income." (Tamales Bay Berths and Buoys
benchmark rates Staff Report 28). We note that the City of Newport Beach has used rates as
high as 8.5% of rents received by Newport Harbor marinas to establish the fair rental value of the
tidelands in relation to the largest marinas in Newport Harbor and less in relation to smaller
marinas and other uses. This is set forth in the comprehensive Appraisal Report of the valuation
of fees to be charged for use of tideland for all uses of the tidelands in Newport Harbor adopted
by the City of Newport Beach and published in 2016 and 2017 in two separate reports b
George Hamiton Jones report which can be found at:
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 3 CBRE
Scope of Work
https:Harchive.newportbeachIibrary.org/NBPL/DocView.aspx?id= 1263772
&dbid=O&repo=CNl3&cr= 1
The Phase 1 report of George Hamiton Jones concerned a particular marina, and the Phase 2
report, which incorporated the methodology of the prior report concerned all commercial uses as
well as other uses. It is noteworthy that some offshore moorings are used for approved
commercial uses and as such fall under the George Hamiton Jones appraisal under other uses,
and offshore moorings used for recreations use would also fall under "other uses", using a
reasonable interpretation of the George Hamiton Jones appraisal. The rates in the George
Hamiton Jones report were adopted by the City of Newport Beach, and then published and
updated annually with increases. The current published rates can be found at the following link:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/harbor-
cha rges/com mercia I -tidela nds- permits -a nd -leases
The City's published rates for, in effect, all uses except for homeowner docks, but which includes
HOA (homeowner association docks when rented out by the HOA) shown in the link above are
as follows:
The following rates are effective March 1, 2022 through February 29, 2024:
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 4 CBRE
Scope of Work
Annual Rental Rate Annual Rental Rate
Commercial Use Category* (Per SF) (Per SF)
3/1/22 - 2/28/23 3/1/23 - 2/29/24
Large Commercial Marinas
$1.34
$1.42
Medium Commercial Marinas
$1.02
$1.08
Small Commercial Marinas
$0.88
$0.93
Shipyards
$0.42
$0.45
HOA Marinas/Docks for Non-
members' Use
> 30,000 SF
$1.34
$1.42
13,000 SF to 30,000 SF
$1.02
$1.08
< 13,000 SF
$0.88
$0.93
Yacht Club Guest Slips
$0.42
$0.45
Vessel Rental Facility (Boat Rentals)
$0.88
$0.93
Sport Fishing Charters
$0.88
$0.93
Restaurants' Guest Slips
$0.42
$0.45
Vessel Charters
$0.88
$0.93
Fuel Docks
$0.88
$0.93
All Others
$0.88
$0.93
* The Annual Rental Rate for commercial tidelands being used as Fuel Docks can be calculated
one of three ways, per City Council Resolution No. 2018-09. The table above reflects the base
rent only calculation option.
Beginning on March 1, 2019, annual rental rates may be adlusted on the first day of March each
Permit/Lease year to reflect an Increase in the cost of living, as indicated by the Consumer Price
Index. Additional information regarding rental rates can be found in City Council Resolution
No. 2017-49 and No. 2018-09.
As discussed below, the estimated square foot of tidelands used by a 40-foot offshore mooring Is
1,326 square feet. That is the same for a commercial offshore mooring as well as a recreational
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 5 CBRE
Scope of Work
offshore mooring. Using the "Other Uses" published by the City and based on the square feet
of tidelands used, the rate would be $0.93 per annum, which is $1,233 per year.
While this rate Is materially lower than the rate found in this report, it does show that the current
rates charged for offshore moorings is, and has been significantly higher than what the City is
charging and has been charging for almost all other uses of the tidelands, namely $1.16 per
square foot of tidelands used per annum based on an estimated 1,326 square feet of tidelands
used for a 40 foot vessel.
We have also estimated current fair market rent for the subject by utilizing various measures of
inflation and applying an appropriate level of inflation to the City's previously adopted Fair Use
Fee / Market Rent on which today's fees are based. The City's adopted rate of $35 per lineal foot
in 2016 with annual CPI adjustments subject to a cap, was based on an appraisal by Netzer and
Associates as hired by the City. The City's appraiser Mr. Netzer concluded a range from $32 to
$38 per lineal foot and the City adopted $35 per lineal foot per year. As such, it is concluded
that Netzer's 2015/2016 appraisal was reflective of market as adopted by the City, and again as
hired by the City of Newport Beach.
Presumably, the City were aware of the George Hamiton Jones report of the same year, which is
also taken into account when adjusting the base values to information available regarding
market conditions.
Of material consideration throughout the report and analysis, in contrast to all other surveyed
facilities in the appraisal, marinas with slips and / or moorings, which all provide ready access,
such as extensive permanent dinghy docks where a motorized dinghy/tender is available 24/7 by
to provide access to the moorings, Newport Harbor has exceedingly poor / grossly inadequate
public accessibility (harbor proximate dinghy storage or comparable) and amenities that serve the
mooring fields. The additional cost to obtain similar motorized in water dinghy/tender dock space
in Newport Beach is a malor and necessary adjustment which needs to be taken into account. Put
simply, a mooring without easy access has greatly diminished value. This will be discussed in
detail throughout the report. Mooring access is a free City -provided service in the harbors of San
Diego, Morro Bay, and Monterey and other Harbors that have off -shore moorings.
What follows is a Table of Rates (Implied Subject mooring / tidelands market Rates) that are
based on rates published by the City for 2024, using the Small Marina and Other Use Sq Ft rate
of $0.93 per annurn per Sq Ft.
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 6 CBRE
Scope of Work
Rates Per Annum
Using City's 2024 Small Marina and Other Use Rates Based on Sq Ft of Tidelands
Tidelands Used without Swing Factor
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Scl Ft
30
+
24
x
12
648
40
+
28
x
15
1,020
50
+
34
x
17
1,428
60
+
34
x
19
1,786
70
34
x
21
2,184
Rates Based on Tidelands Used with No Swing Factor
Small Marina
/Other Use
Rate
Boat Size
Total Sq Ft with lines etc
Fee Per Year
at $.93 sq ft
$0.93
30
648
$602.64
$0.93
40
1,020
$948.60
$0.93
50
1,428
$1,328.04
$0.93
60
1,786
$1,660.98
$0.93
70
2,184
$2,031.12
Rates Adding a Swing Factor of 20%
Boat Size
Scl Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Tota I Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30
648
x
778
$723.54
40
1,020
x
1,224
$1,138.32
50
1,428
x
1,714
$1,594.02
60
1,786
x
2,144
$1,993.92
70
2,184
x
2,621
$2,437.53
Rates Adding a Swing Factor of 25%
Boat Size
Scl Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30
648
x
810
$744.93
40
1,020
x
1,275
$1,185.75
50
1,428
x
1,785
$1,660.05
60
1,786
x
2,233
$2,076.69
70
2,184
x
2,730
$2,538.90
C) 2024 CBRE, Inc. CBRE
Scope of Work
Rates Addina a Swina Factor of 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30
648
x
843
$783.99
40
1,020
x
1,326
$1,233.18
50
1,428
x
1,857
$1,727.01
60
1,786
x
2,322
$2,159.46
70
2,184 -
xT
2,840
$2,641.20
9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 8 CBRE
Neighborhood Analysis
Neighborhood Analysis
'_eo �3
Rd
&ewport Slay
N.ewport NEWPORT
Beach
CENTER
BALB04
ISLANPI
Gmapbox 1 1 �1 I ;ID
The center of recreation in the city is Newport Harbor, which is the largest small boat harbor in
the United States. Boating facilities include marinas, docks, slips, moorings, fuel docks and repair
and maintenance yards. Also having prominent waterfront locations are many dinner house type
restaurants, the exclusive Balboa Bay Club, and many yacht clubs.
Newport Harbor is a premier destination -oriented location where population swells in the
summertime with tourism and people with second homes around the harbor.
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 9 CBRE
Subject Analysis
Subject Analysis
The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site.
HARBOR MOORING FIELDS SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
Physical Description
Tidelands Area
81.583 Acres
3,553,765 Sq. Ft.
Moorings
579
Mooring Field A
133
22.148 Acres
964,786 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field B
61
8.430 Acres
367,221 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field C
54
8.857 Acres
385,811 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field D
56
7.329 Acres
319,247 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field F
22
3.326 Acres
144,881 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field G
18
2.345 Acres
102,130 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field H
91
10.531 Acres
458,738 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field J
122
15.44 Acres
672,686 Sq. Ft.
Mooring Field K
22
3.17 Acres
138,265 Sq. Ft.
Source: Various sources compiled by CBRE
DEFINITIONS
Mooring — The term "mooring" shall mean a device consisting of a floating buoy or other object that is
secured to the harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel and includes any
apparatus used to secure a vessel in Newport Harbor which is not carried aboard such vessel as
regular equipment when under way. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code, Chapter 1 7.01.030.J.7.)
Mooring Area — The term "mooring area" shall mean an area designated for a group of moorings.
(City of Newport Beach, harbor Code, Chapter I 7.01.030.J.8.)
Offshore Mooring — The term "offshore mooring" shall mean a mooring that is located bayward of the
pierhead line and comprises a single or double buoy, the weight and chain installed for the purpose of
berthing a vessel, as provided by Chapter 17.25. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code, Chapter
17.01.0 3 0. L. I .)
Tidelands — The term "tidelands" or "public tidelands" shall mean all lands that were granted to the
City by the State of California, including, but not limited to, submerged lands and/or lands that are
located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code,
Chapter 17.01.030.P.1.)
Tidelands Utilizedby a Mooring— shall mean that area within a Mooring Area (mooring field) utilized
by an individual mooring for the exclusive use of the mooring holder for a vessel which is or could be
located on the mooring.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. ic CBRE
Subject Analysis
TIDELAND SQUARE FOOTAGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A 40 LINEAL FOOT BOAT MOORING
Each mooring holder has the exclusive right to use a certain area of the tidelands and the
mooring holder places its own equipment, weights, chain and lines within the small area. For
example, a 40 foot mooring would use 40 feet plus 12 feet of line to the front and back buoy on
a two buoy mooring, plus 2 feet for each buoy, with a 15 foot beam, plus allowing for a 30%
swing factor = 1,326 square feet of tidelands used.
In this example, 33.15 square feet of tidelands would be used per 1 lineal foot of mooring size
(1,326SF / 40LF = 33.1 5SF).
Tideland square footage other sizes and swing factor
The added square footage for a "swing factor" is the maximum adjustment for a mooring using
two buoys, one off the bow and one off the stern. This has been used as a consideration in
establishing rates in other harbors. However, it should be noted that when a boat moves or
swings in one direction it opens up tidelands in the place from where it moved / swung from and
opens up those tidelands for use by the public, thus the swing factor could reasonably be
concluded to be "zero" due to these offsetting factors.
What follows is a Table Square Footage Used for various size boats with and without a swing
factor.
Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30
+
24
x
12
648
40
+
28
x
15
1,020
50
+
34
x
17
1,428
60
+
34
x
19
1,786
70
+
34
x
i 21
2,184
Add Swing Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
30
648
x
778
40
1,020
x
1,224
50
1,428
x
1,714
60
1,786
x
2,144
70
2,184
x
2,621
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 11 CBRE
Subject Analysis
Add Swina Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
30
648
x
810
40
1 020
x
1275
50
1,428
x
1785
60
1,786
x
2,233
70
2,184
x
2730
Add Swina Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
30
648
x
843
40
1,020
x
1,326
50
1,428
x
1,857
60
1,786
x
2,32
70
2,184
x
2,840
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 12 CBRE
Market Analysis
Zoning
The subject tidelands are under the regulatory supervision of several entities in addition to the
City of Newport Beach. These include the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways,
the California Coastal Commission, as well as oversight by the Army Corps of Engineers, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife and others.
Note that City development standards are largely inapplicable to the subject mooring field
encumbered tidelands due to the fact that there is no existing or possible *joincler, or
operation/utilization of the tidelands in tandem with an uplands property as virtually all other
commercial uses along the harbor currently operate.
Given the lack of access, the only way to truly utilize the subject tidelands is for offshore
moorings.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 13 CBRE
Market Analysis
Market Analysis
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandernic and subsequent lockdowns and restrictions on
businesses — shopping, dining, etc., there was a surge in demand for alternative recreational or
leisure activities. Notable surges included RVIng and Boating. New boat sales reportedly
increased 40% during the pandemic. However, note that 95% of recreational boats are lake
boats under 26', which are not truly applicable or relevant to the analysis of the moorings within
the subject saltwater harbor.
That being said, the surge in demand for boating resulted in an Increase in demand for slips and
moorings. Consequently, prices and rents also increased given the relatively fixed supply of
marina space. It is difficult to quantify the increase In slip fees year over year; however, as an
important distinction marinas owned over the long term with inactive management have been
acquired by active competent managers and operators which are able to increase rents by a
factor of two or more over the short term. The distinction is that this is not a linear market trend,
but instead a realization of mark -to -market rents with short-term rental agreements.
However, it is important to recognize the release of pressure or easing of demand for boating as
the COVID-19 pandernic is behind us and people have returned to activities that were not
available to them during the pandernic in 2020 and 2021. In addition to this, we are currently
facing severe economic headwinds and uncertainty due to the unprecedented Fed rate hikes of
more than 500 basis points since April of 2022. The already apparent result of this and its
economic consequences are detailed in the following:
According to Recreational Boating Statistics published by the NMMA (National Marine
Manufactures Association) 2022 report:
o Powerboat sales normalized in 2022, down an estimated 15% to 18% from 2021
to pre -pandemic levels
o 2022 sales and 2023 projections highlight segments driving growth as entry level
personal watercraft, freshwater fishing boats, and pontoon boats under 26'
These are not market segments that contribute to Newport Harbor, thus
indicating a sharper decline in demand for vessels found in Newport
Harbor
In summary, a significant easing of demand was widely apparent through 2022 and into 2023.
With all of this being said, despite substantial anticipated headwinds, Newport Harbor remains a
highly sought after location, noting that there is increased availability in 2023 and rents have
stabilized.
CRC Marinas operates four marinas in Newport Harbor: Balboa Marina, Bayside Marina, Villa
Cove Marina, and Bayshore Marina. When surveyed in 2022 they had only five avallabilities.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 14 CBRE
Market Analysis
CRC Marinas currently has 11 available slip spaces throughout their Balboa and Bayside
Marinas.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the market is in a period of "returning to normalcy" with rents stabilizing and availability
increasing. The end of the COVID- 19 pandernic and resultant declining demand for personal
recreational watercraft in the face of extreme uncertainty In the current economic climate with
materially unsettled / disrupted financial markets is anticipated to at least partially unwind the
upward pressure on slip rates observed during 2020 and 2021.
Also, a notable distinction Is that per our review of the mooring transfer logs in Newport Harbor
from 2017 through 2022, appreciation in pricing of moorings is negligible compared to the
increase in the far more rare and highly desirable marina slip rental rates. As such, the increase
in slip rents versus the Increase In mooring rent Is less than 1 : I .
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 1 E CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
Highest and Best Use
Per the terms of the assignment, the appraiser is to provide a fair market rent analysis for the
subject in its current condition. Determination of highest and best use is beyond the scope of this
assignment. That said, given the lack / absence of accessibility to the sublect mooring fields
other than by boat, the subject is assumed to be operating to its highest and best use, as mooring
fields.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 16 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
Fair Market Rent Analysis
METHODOLOGIES
We have employed multiple methodologies in our analyses. All are based on market data relating to a
typical mooring or slip intended to accommodate a boat measuring 40 lineal feet.
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION — BENCHMARK TIDELANDS RENT
The first methodology employed is consistent with multiple recent Benchmark Tidelands Rental
adjustments reports with the following methodology:
In order to determine the value of the leased area (of a pier, buoy, mooring pole, etc.), It will be
necessary to determine: what income can typically be generated by a commercial marina; the area
occupied by a marina slip in a well -designed marina; what the rental charge would be for a typical
sized boat; and the rate of return the State should receive for the use of its land.
We have three recent reports referencing / employing this methodology:
• Southern California Benchmark Memo date May 6, 2022
• San Francisco Bay Area Benchmark Memo date January 18, 2022
• Tornales Bay Benchmark Memo date October 7, 2020
• We also note that the City of Newport Beach has used 8.5% when assessing rates to be charged
to companies operating the largest marinas in Newport Harbor but substantially less for smaller
marinas and other commercial uses, and have taken that into account as a local benchmark.
This is shown in the 2016 and 2017 George Hamiton Jones Reports utilized by the City for all
uses of the tidelands as well as in the City's published rate (link provided above).
As a reference to California State Lands Commission Tornales Bay report PDF page 11:
"The Commission typically charges 5% to 6% of gross income for boat berthing for sites
leased to commercial marina operators, with most of the leases set at 5% of gross
income."
A rate of return on the income applicable to the Tidelands utilized in each of the three above
referenced reports was 5%. We have concluded to the higher rate of 6% given the recent / current
inflationary pressures that have resulted in notable rate hikes which are anticipated to remain elevated
in the near -term. However, noting that the Fed controls only short-term rates, only a slight adjustment
upward from 5% Is appropriate for a long-term normalized rate of return. The complete analysis Is
contained on the following pages.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 17 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
The following contains a comprehensive rental survey of various marinas throughout Newport Harbor:
NEWPORT BEACH SLIP RENTALS
Average $/ft
Adjusted for
Location
Boat / Slip Length
Average $/ft
Amenities
Average $/month
Lido Yacht Anchorage
40'
$52
$52
$2,080
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina (no amenities)
40'
$50
$63
$2,500
Bayside Village Marina
40'
$41
$41
$1,640
Port Calypso
40'
$44
$44
$1,760
Lido Park Place Marina (no amenities)
40'
$45
$56
$2,250
Marina Park (Based on $88 Nightly Rate)
40'
$66
$66
$2,640
Newport Dunes Resort Marina
40'
$76
$76
$3,040
Mean $52.22 $55.66 $2,226
Median $50.00 $56.25 $2,250
Market Rent Estimate
6% Return Appliable to the tidelands $56 x 0.06 $3.36 AnnualRent
6% of Gross Income Attributable to State Owned Tidelands Annual Fair Rental x 40' boat / slip $134 $1,613
Return = 3.36 per lineal foot per month x 40 x 12 months = $1,613 per year
Compiled by CBRE
In the above analysis we did not use the 8.5% used by the City when establishing rates uses per the
George Homiton Jones Report for the largest marinas, since the other rates published by the City and
adopted by the George Hamilton Jones report for smaller marinas and "other uses" was approximately
1/3 lower, which would result in a rate of approximately 5.67% of the gross revenues charged by
marinas, which is a rate very closely aligned with the State Lands Benchmarks.
We have concluded market rent consistent with the mean and median rents indicated by the
aggregated survey data at $56/LF for a boat in a slip with all the benefits which include parking,
restrooms, electricity, security, nighttime lighting, easy access and walk-on walk -off, and use of the
marina docks and gangways. We then calculated the annual rent allocation to the tidelands based
on the rate of return typically used by State Lands, and not on the higher rate used by Newport Beach
of 6%, which is above the typical 5% rate utilized in the three referenced reports, but which is
appropriate due to the current interest rate environment while still within the long-term "5% to 6% of
gross income" range as advised in the reports.
CONSIDERATION OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Slip Versus Mooring
The first consideration of adjustment factor is actual tidelands encumbered by the 40' boat which differs
for a slip versus a mooring.
According to the California State Lands Commission reports, the "Layout and Design Guidelines for
Marina Berthing Facilities" publication (last updated July 2005) from the State Department of Boating
and Waterways is used to determine the amount of submerged land area necessary to accommodate a
given mooring size. The results are in the following chart:
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. I E CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
TIDELANDS UTILIZED PER BOAT SIZE
Tidelands SF
Tidelands
Allocation per
Report
Boat Length
Allocation
Lineal Boat Foot
Tamales Bay Benchmark
31'
865
28
San Francisco Benchmark
38'
1,197
32
Southern California Benchmark
37'
1,153
31
Subject Estimate
40'
1,326
33.15
Compiled by CBRE
As previously determined, the Tidelands square footage required to accommodate a similar size
mooring is somewhat greater than that of a slip, even when the docks, gangways and related features
are added to the area associated with a slip. This is mainly due to the added square footage
associated with lines from the vessel to the buoys vs the areas of dock space in front of and on either
side of a slip, While we added significant extra square footage to each mooring to account for the area
from a vessel to the buoys at the full beam of the vessel (which is an area greater than the distance
used by lines to the buoys) we did not add any area for the swing of the boat since as a boat on a
double mooring moves slightly in one direction it opens up tidelands in the other direction which can be
used by the public for kayaking, paddle boarding and other recreational use.
Access and Amenities
The second consideration of adlustment factor is the difference in convenience and functional utility
between a slip in a typical marina versus a typical mooring. Items include dedicated shore facilities such
as restrooms and showers, actual utility to boat operation such as electricity and water, security,
fencing, nighttime lighting, and most importantly use of docks and gangways for easy access,
compared to a boat on a mooring that has none of these amenities. All other harbors with any
significant sized mooring fields provide much less favorable access by way of dinghy docks available
for docking dinghies and tenders for 24/7 access, but Newport Beach moorings unlike the moorings in
other harbors, do not even have this access.
Clearly with a marina or slip rental, a renter can physically walk with all of their supplies to their vessel.
With a moored vessel, a dinghy or other boat is required to travel from the shore to the mooring.
Further impacting the subject Newport Harbor is the lack of access by way of an in -water motorized
dinghy/tender for access to a Newport Beach mooring.
We have reviewed multiple harbors with both slips and off -shore moorings in San Diego, Morro Bay,
Monterey, and Half Moon Bay Harbors, all of which provide docks where mooring renters and/or
permit holders can have a tender for 24/7 access at no charge, with the exception of Half Moon Bay,
which may charge a nominal $64 per month, and Monterey which changes $89 per quarter or $30 per
month. San Diego's moorings have access to dinghy docks, but in some cases the dinghy dock may be
more remote to some mooring fields. We have noted that data from these other harbors show that
mooring rates are really a combination of not just the use of an area of the tidelands, but a
combination of the area of tidelands used plus the use of dinghy/tender docks for fullfirne access to the
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 15 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
moorings 24/7, and in the case of San Diego, having the maintenance of the mooring (estimated at
$120 per month) included in the fees.
Note that we have focused our research on public versus private ownership mooring versus slip fee
rentals as the private institutions. For example, in Newport Harbor various yacht clubs offer shore boat
service for a nominal fee which is less easily quantified. The yacht clubs total charges, including shore
boat service, for moorings mostly on the larger size, would need to adiusted not only for the cost of a
slip for a dinghy/tender in Newport Harbor, but also for the cost of purchasing a seaworthy tender with
motor, maintaining the tender and engine, as well as other amenities the yacht club provides to its
mooring holders.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 2C CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
Approximate Mooring to Slip Fee Ratio
In reviewing the slip to mooring fee ratios, this is a very imprecise "derivative" method and is
difficult to rely on. Some of the reasons why it is unreliable and should not be used are discussed
here. One malor factor is that similar assets are not being compared. As the old saying goes, it's
like comparing apples to oranges. Another factor would be the extent to which an increase in
slip fees does not necessarily track the supply and demand for moorings, especially larger slips
that only a small group of people demand and can afford.
Another important factor that cannot be underestimated is that the comparison with other harbors
is a comparison of Moorings plus Dinghy Docks to Local Slips. In the case of Newport Beach, it
would be comparing Mooring without Dinghy Docks to Local Slips with full access. Whereas any
Itratio" at other harbors would compare the area used by a mooring plus full access to a
dinghy/tender dock for access to the mooring to rates charged for a slip of the same size as the
maximum size of the mooring. This makes such a method even more derivative, since once an
initial valuation is made using a ratio from other harbors, the suggested fee would need to be
reduced by the cost of obtaining a slip for a motorized dinghy/tender available 24/7 without
restriction.
As mentioned, the data regarding fees charged for moorings with dinghy dock access vs slip
rates in other harbors and the resulting ratios are not sufficiently reliable and can be seen using a
few examples. One example is the rates for moorings in San Diego have not risen in many years
and may be due for an increase. If and when the lease would take off some of the caps on rates
charged for moorings (plus use of dinghy docks, plus servicing the mooring equipment). If rates
are increased, it will take years to ascertain if the public will continue to rent the moorings at the
new rate and if vacancies will occur. So, while the manager of the San Diego moorings, like any
other manager of any other rental property may "wish" to increase the rates, it is a wish, which is
not a reliable source to be considered until and after it has been in place for many years and the
response to the increase is known. Any owner of real estate may "wish" to increase his or her
rental rates, but without doing so and assessing how the market will respond with move outs and
resulting vacancies often will take years to assess. In the case of a boat on a mooring, it would
likely take even longer since moving a boat off a mooring would require an alternative place to
store the boat. A large sailboat with a keel cannot be put on a trailer, and the boat owner may
be forced to pay above market rent until he or she can move or sell the boat. Again, it would
take years to assess such a "wished for" increase.
The manager of the San Diego moorings has estimated that the cost to inspect and maintain the
moorings Is in excess of $120 per month per mooring. Even after market rent was established,
as mentioned, the "ratio" that may eventually be established in San Diego would need to be
adjusted because the ratios in San Diego would not be for moorings versus slips, but for
moorings with full maintenance, inspections, and full dinghy dock access, as compared to a slip.
Such a ratio, once established years from now, would not apply to Newport Harbor, where the
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 21 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
mooring holder pays for its own maintenance, inspects, makes periodic replacement of weights
and chain, and where the City is not providing access by way of dinghy docks made reasonably
available to all offshore moorings with 24/7 for access to the moorings.
To complicate the situation even more is the fact that while the manager of the San Diego
moorings may "wish" to test increases in mooring rates, the manager has not obtained formal
approval to do so at this time, nor has the State Lands Commission been consulted on any
proposed increase.
In the case of Morro Bay, as mentioned, the rates charged for slips for the commercial fishing
fleet and other commercial uses may be subsidized and would be difficult to measure. On the
other hand, the rates charged for moorings plus ample dinghy docks is currently $110 per month
for a mooring that can be used for a 50-foot vessel, which is approximately $2.00 per lineal foot
per month. On the other hand, the City of Morro Bay charges approximately $26 per foot for
slips as shown on page 32 of the Netzer appraisal report. That would indicate a ratio of over
1/10 and that is for moorings with docks for dinghy/tenders to allow access to the moorings
24/7.
It Is also worthy of note that the City of Morro Bay also has City -owned moorings and the City
charges approximate 3 times more for renting City -owned moorings versus individual -owned
moorings because the city installs and maintains the mooring hardware, likely has insurance to
cover these activities, and makes necessary adiustments from time to time, whereas a Morro Bay
mooring owner is responsible for all of these costs.
Monterey Bay data is also difficult to ascertain. One of the marinas where there is not a long
wait time sits at the base of a power plant with many complaints about dirt and grime on vessels
in the marina. It is unclear what the wait time is for other nearby marinas. Nearby Santa Cruz
Harbor marinas do not suffer from these issues. A 45-foot slip in Santa Cruz would cost
approximately $16 to $30 per foot per month depending on the location of the slip, with an
average of $23 per foot, or $1,035 per month, compared to $187 per month for a "east harbor
mooring" or $100 per month (if paid annually) for an "out harbor mooring," for an average of
$144 for a mooring in Monterey Bay that also comes with dinghy dock access (at a cost of $89
per quarter = $30 per month) for a total of $174 per month for a mooring and a dock for a
dinghy/tender to access the mooring. This would result in a ratio of 1/6, but again this is for a
mooring with use of a dinghy/tender dock.
Half Moon Bay is also problematic for similar reasons. Slip fees for a 50-foot boat are on
average $540 per month. Mooring rates are $1.92 per month per lineal foot, which is $96 per
month for a 50-foot boat and add a possible $64 per month for use of the dinghy docks, for a
total of $160 per month. But we do not know if there is a long wait list for slips or if the slip rate
reflects market rates for slips. This would be 29.6% but again only as a combination of use of a
mooring plus use of a dinghy dock.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 22 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
For all of the above reasons, the ratio derivative method derived from other harbors cannot be
used.
Ironically, without looking to other harbors, the only ratio where moorings without din hy
I --,g docks
to slips has been derived from appraisals conducted and accepted by the City of Newport Beach
was approximately 2016. In that year, market rates for slips were shown in the George Hamilton
Jones appraisal which showed the average slip rate in Newport Beach for a 40-foot slip to be
$1,640 per month per month = $41 per lineal foot per month / $492 per lineal foot per year.
At the same time, Mr. Netzer appraised the market rate for Newport Moorings to be $32 to $38
per year, and the City established the rate to be $35 per lineal foot per year. The result was that
that the ratio of mooring fees without din hy docks and without reasonable access to slips fees in
Newport Harbor for a 40-foot mooring was 35/492 = 1/14 = approximately 7%. There is no
reason to suggest that ratio would have changed. Again, this "derivative" approach is not a
generally accepted appraisal approach and using this approach does not yield a much different
result (when the lack of access is factored in) as compared to traditional established methods.
However, if used and applied to Newport Harbor based on the two formal and accepted
appraisals done at that time, it would result in rates lower than the opinion of rates shown in this
report.
As noted above, this "derivative" approach is the least reliable of all other methods and is
included to show the various factors that are at play and change from time to time and are
affected by different variables, such as favoring a type of use or a subsidized type of use, or
popularity of one type of use over another as we have seen during the Covid years with people
becoming interested in a condo on the water In a marina with electricity and easy access. For
this reason, this ratio approach was not used.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 23 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
Proi)osed Rates for Citv-Owned Moorinas
The City is in the process of renting moorings under a license arrangement. Under the license the
licensee is free to leave on 30 days' notice and has no capital commitment to the use of the
mooring. The number of these moorings is limited, and each size is limited even more. As in the
case of the possible future rate increases in San Diego, any data from such rental would take
years to assess. First, these would need to be rented, then over the next few years the length of
time a person rents such a mooring would need to be determined. Third, how the limited
number of persons obtain access would need to be ascertained. For example, if the licensee has
access by way of a home dock, a shore mooring, use of a boat that he or she was already using
for their purposes, or use of a friends dock space, this would only demonstrate value, utility, or
rent for that particular person where access was not an issue. However, that fact that a particular
person may pay what is otherwise over market for the general public, thus does not establish
market rent.
In addition, it should be noted that the City has created its own scarcity of rentable moorings. At
any given time, the harbor master has observed that there are over 100 vacant moorings. At the
same time the City does not allow mooring holders to rent these out. As such, the City has
created its own scarcity of moorings for rent, and with only a handful available, this artificially
and significantly decreases the supply thus artificially increasing competition and the amount of
equilibrium or fair market rent indicated by the market, again which is entirely artificial in nature.
Of note also is the fact that the City will need to maintain, inspect, and periodically replace
mooring equipment, buoys, anchors and chain, which is estimated by the operator of the San
Diego Mooring Company to be over $120 per month.
For the above reasons, the future rental of this handful of moorings cannot be used in any
comparative or other analysis.
As a final note, other harbors that have both privately -owned and City -owned moorings and
have considered the difference in each, have established rates much lower for privately -owned
moorings. For example, Morro Bay charges $110 per month for private moorings (and provides
access to dinghy docks) but charges $330 per month when it rents out City -owned moorings on a
long-term basis. Half Moon Bay charges $1.92 per month per foot for privately -owned
moorings, but charges $5.08 per foot per month for City -owned moorings.
OTHER METHODOLOGIES NOT USED AND DEEMED UNRELIABLE
Comparison of Tideland Use in Connection with Adjacent Properties Should Not Be Used
Attempting to separate component parts and considerations that make up a property value is an
extremely unreliable methodology and if ever used as a consideration is done only when there
are no other established methods. As shown in this report there are other established methods,
and this approach should not be considered.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 24 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
A few examples might illustrate the issue with such a methodology. Consider a view home on a
bluff that sells for $40 million dollars, and the identical home that is across the street from the
view home and sells for $15 million dollars less. One might think the "view" component, by
itself, has a value of $15 million dollars. That would mean that if there were an unbuilclable lot
next to the view home it should have a value of $15 million dollars. However, it is likely the
unbuilclable lot has little or no value. The extra value is completely integrated into the value of
the home and cannot be separated from the location, characteristics, amenities, and established
value of the home.
Another example would be rental of home docks within Newport Harbor. If a home with a dock
has a value of $60 million dollars and rents out its 40 foot slip the slip rate should be four times
higher than a $15 million dollar home that rents out its 40-foot slip. However, slip rates for
home docks do not seem to vary much from marina slip rates and do not appear to correlate to
the value of the adiacent home.
These examples are used only to illustrate why considering the value of adjacent real property
cannot be used in extrapolating rates for moorings in Newport Harbor.
Attempting to Extrapolate Rates from Reported Mooring Sales is an Unreliable Method and
Should Not be Considered
A handful of offshore moorings is sold and transferred each year. However, the data and
circumstances are typically not fully known, and the number of sales is insufficient to establish a
reliable database of sales where a buyer and a seller with full knowledge of the property in
question established a value. Unlike real estate transactions typically handled by licensed real
estate brokers, moorings are typically sold by individuals privately without help from brokers. In
a brokered transaction, there are multiple disclosure forms required and used so the buyer has
full knowledge of all of the risks and hazards that are known to be related to the property. As
discussed elsewhere in this report, the single most important component of value, or lack of
value, of a mooring is access to the mooring which, in all other harbors, is established by an
adequate number of dinghy docks. While a person not familiar with the access problem in
Newport Beach might see several public docks and mistakenly conclude that they have sufficient
access to the mooring being purchased, that conclusion would be mistaken. Since the details of
each of the reported sales are unknown, it is pure speculation to provide an opinion of the extent,
if any, of disclosure regarding the material and functional lack of dinghy dock access in Newport
Harbor. Once a person has acquired a mooring and put their boat on the mooring, it is difficult
to find an affordable low cost alternative place to move the boat, which may be a reason why,
after becoming aware of the access problem, a mooring might not be put up for sale in the short
term (as the Harbor Department does not allow resale of moorings within one year of purchase),
and the person might have to resort to far less desirable methods to gain access to the mooring.
In addition to the disclosure issue, there may be a handful of people for whom access is not a
problem. For example, they may have a home dock, have access to a friend's home dock, may
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 2E CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
have a shore mooring, may have a small boat on a slip that they already used for other
purposes. The number of buyers of moorings for whom access is not an issue or less of an issue
is completely unknown.
It is also noteworthy that the reported sale data is provided by individuals and not from any
formal source. In some cases, a mooring is sold in combination with a boat and because a sale
of a boat is subject to sales tax, the allocation on the price between the boat and the mooring
might be adjusted 'in a manner that might have a lower impact on the sales tax to be paid.
These are some of the reasons why focusing on the fact that moorings are sold at a particular
price cannot be used to ascertain rates to be charged for the use of the tidelands occupied by
boats on moorings.
Summary and Conclusion
In contrast to the subject Newport Harbor Mooring fields, the surveyed harbors above provide easy
access to moorings, with dinghy docks for in water motorized dinghy/tenders to allow people to access
their moorings 24/7 with no significate time limits. Access to the individual moorings in these other
harbors (all other harbors) is far superior to the subject as the City of Newport Beach provides
extremely limited in -water motorized dinghy access to moorings. The handful of spaces available
are limited in time and only randomly available, depending on how many other dinghies are
using the limited spaces at any time. Moreover, the handful of dinghy dock spaces are also
available to the public, not lust for access to moorings, and the space is limited to a maximum of
36 hours which means, in effect, if a mooring holder were lucky enough to secure a space, by the
time he or she came back the next weekend his or her dinghy would have been impounded by
the City and subject to a large penalty. As such, to make an appropriate adjustment, the benefit
provided by the dinghy docks at other harbors needs to be quantified. To obtain a space for a
dinghy/tender of 9 to 12 feet at a marina in Newport Beach, the costs would be approximately
$400 to $750 per month. There is a limited supply of such spaces and often there is a minimum
length of 18 to 20 feet, which is reflected by the higher range cost of $750. The estimated cost
would of course change were the City to require marina operators to provide smaller spaces
(without losing revenue) but that is currently unavailable. On a comparative basis with what other
harbors offer (which is a combination of mooring plus access to the mooring), an additional
discount is warranted as related to the preceding discussion and analysis. In other words, on a
comparison basis, if Newport Beach provided easy motorized in -water access to moorings 24/7
without any significant time restriction, the rate would be subject to an upward adjustment.
However, as noted above, a mooring without access, just like land without access, has
substantially diminished value.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 26 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
INDICATED MARKET RENT
Tidelands Rent for 40' Boat
Estimated Annual Rent to Slip for 40' slips in 2024
$26,880
Estimated Annual Rent for 40'slip in lineal feet
$672
Ratio of Mooring without access versus slip
1 /14
% Multiplier = 1 / 14
7.1%
Annual Market Rent for 40 Lineal Foot Mooring
$1,920
Annual Rent Per Lineal Foot
$48.00
Compiled by CBRE
Again, this was provided for informational purposes only and is not weighted in our final
reconciliation of fair rent due to diminished reliability of the ratio approach compared to the
other approaches utilized in the appraisals.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 27 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
METHODOLOGY UTILIZING MARKET INFLATION FROM THE PREVIOUS BENCHMARK
The previously determined rent for offshore moorings was concluded to be $35 per lineal foot
per year based on an appraisal performed by Netzer & Associates as hired by the City of
Newport Beach. This $35 rate adopted by the City as determined by the City -hired appraiser is
considered to be representative of market. The following analysis utilizes this benchmark rate
with appropriate inflation factor applied to accurately reflect a market based rental rate in today's
more favorable market.
CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION - BENCHMARK PAIRED INFLATION DATA
Reassessed Market Indicated Simple
Location Base Year Tidelands Rent Adjusted Tidelands Rent Annual Inflation
Southern California Benchmark $0.374/sf in 2016 $0.451/sf in 2022 4.1%
San Francisco BayArea $0.198/sf in 2016 $0.227/sf in 2022 2.4%
Tamales Bay $0.114/sf in 2015 $0.133/sf in 2020 3.3%
CPI 1982-84=100 ***July 2018 Newport Harbor Adjustment based on March 2016 GHJ Appraisal
December 2023 CP1 302.408 March 2016 CPI 238.132 3.48%
December 2023 CPI 302.408 July 2018 CPI 252.006 3.69%
Mean of All Survey Data 3.36%
Median of All Survey Data 3.48%
Compiled by CBRE
As illustrated above, the most recent reports reflect the highest inflation due to the unprecedented
inflationary times experienced in 2020 and 2021, and as a result of which the Fed has increased
rates over 500 basis points. This is an offsetting factor in the determination of a new benchmark
rate which is highly influenced by the artificially -created inflationary environment of 2020 and
2021, which is not reflective of long-term trends. When inflation is measured against the relevant
time periods up until 2020, historical inflation is closer to 2% per year. As such, downward
consideration is warranted from the preceding data.
We have concluded to 3% as a long-term trend which is based on the 3.5% to 3.9% indication
above, adjusted downward for the artificial inflationary environment of 2020 and 2021.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 2E CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
In addition to the preceding, we have also compared current surveyed rents to those indicated in
a City of Newport ordered appraisal by George Hamilton Jones dated March 2016.
NEWPORT BEACH PAIRED RENT ANALYSIS
Rent From 2016
Indicated Simple
Location
Boat / Slip Length
Current Rent
GHJ Appraisal
Annual Inflation
Lido Yacht Anchorage
40'
$52
$37
5.5%
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina (no amenities)
40'
$50
$32
7.7%
Bayside Village Marina
40'
$41
$32
3.8%
Newport Dunes Resort Marina
40'
$76
$42
10.9%
Mean 6.5%
Median 6.6%
Compiled by CBRE
Of important distinction, note the greatest inflation was observed for those properties with the
greatest amenities again which is a function of the q�f,�ficiqll created demand and resultant
inflation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and use restrictions where people
spent increasingly more time on their boats, which is enhanced by amenities.
And again, demand is clearly tapering, and the recent two-year inflationary environment is not
reflective of stabilized long-term trends. Furthermore, mooring utility and desirability is vastly
inferior compared to a marina slip with immediately convenient accessibility and amenities such
as water and power, restroom facilities, dedicated parking, etc. As such, the increase in demand
and pricing for a mooring versus a slip would not be correlated 1 : 1, it would be reasonable that
slip fees would increase at a much higher rate than a mooring, especially given the level of
affluence of the surrounding community.
As evidence of this, we have reviewed the mooring transfer logs from 2017 to 2022 which
includes pricing. The value of moorings while having increased over the years (again most
recently given the uptick in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic), has increased by a
marginal basis which is nowhere near the rates indicated in the preceding slip rent increase
indication. As such, appropriate inflation for mooring rents should fall well below the indicated
inflation or paired slip rent analysis over the same time period. The inflation and other tidelands
rates serve as a much more relevant benchmark for inflation compared to paired slip rents.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding data indicated by the recently reassessed Benchmark Rates for California
State Tidelands, market -driven inflation data, and actual paired -rent comparable information
from Newport Harbor, an appropriate inflation factor should fall in the 3% range. We have
based the time adjustment on the July 2018 adoption date of the previous benchmark rate
change. The appropriate time adjust is approximately five and one-half years. The implied
adjusted market rent is detailed in the following chart.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 25 CBRE
Fair Market Rent Analysis
INDICATED MARKET RENT
2016 Appraisal 2018 Adopted City Benchmark Offshore Mooring Rent $/Lineal Ft/Yr $35
Simple Inflation Factor at 3.5% without a cap Annual 3.5%
July 2018 Adoption date versus I Q2024 New Benchmark Date Years 5.5
Total Inflation 19%
Prior Benchmark $35
Market Conditions Adjusted Rate $42
Benchmark Lineal Feet of Boat 40
Annual Market Rent $1,670
Compiled by CBRE
(D 2024 CBRE, Inc. 3C CBRE
Reconciliation of Market Rent
Reconciliation of Market Rent
The rent indications from the two methodologies are summarized as follows:
SUMMARY OF MARKET RENT ESTIMATES
Annual Rent
California State Tidelands Commission Methodology $1,613
Inflation Methodology Based on City's Prior Benchmark $1,670
Ratio Method $1,920
Reconciled Market Rent Estimate $1,640
Based on Typical 40 Lineal Foot Boat $41.00
Compiled by CBRE
As discussed throughout the report, the ratio method is deemed the least reliable methodology
illustrated in the appraisal. We have placed equal approximate emphasis on the first two
methodologies utilized in the preceding chart.
Based on the foregoing, the market rent of the sublect tidelands has been concluded as follows:
TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES / FAIR MARKET RENT
Annual Rent per 40'
Mooring Based on
Market Rent / Lineal Foot 1,326SF of Tidelands
YR for Tidelands used for individual
Appraisal Premise Date of Value ($3.36 LF per mo) mooring
As Is January 15, 2024 $41.00 $1,640
Compiled by CBRE
Tidelands Fair Use Fees / Fair Market Rent — Other Size Moorings
Based on Methodologies Used in This Report the Value per Square Foot is $1.24 per Square Foot
of Tidelands Used Per Annum. The square foot valuation would not change in relation to the size
of mooring, only the square foot used and resulting adjustment to the total rate would change.
Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30
+
24
x
12
648
40
+
28
x
15
1,020
50
+
34
x
17
1,428
60
+
34
x
19
1,786
+
34
x
21
2,184
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 31 CBRE
Reconciliation of Market Rent
Rates without a Swina Factor
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
Tota I Sq Ft
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
648
$803.52
$26.79
40
1,020
x
1,020
$1,264.80
$31.62
50
1,428
x
1,428
$1,770.72
$35.42
60
1,786
x
1,786
$2,214.64
$36.91
70
2,184
x
2,184
$2,708.16
$38.69
Add Swina Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
778
$964.72
$32.16
40
1,020
x
1,224
$1,517.76
$37.95
50
1,428
x
1,714
$2,125.36
$42.51
60
1,786
x
2,144
$2,658.56
$44.31
70
2,184
x
2,621
$3,250.04
$46.43
Add Swinq Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
810
$1,004.40
$33.48
40
1020
x
1,275
$1,581.00
$39.53
50
1428
x
1,785
$2,213.40
$44.27
60
1786
X
2,233
$2,768.92
$46.15
70
2184
x
2,730
$3,385.20
$48.36
Add Swinq Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30
648
x
843
$1,045.32
$34.85
40
1,020
x
1,326
$1,644.24
$41.11
50
1,428
x
1,857
$2,302.68
$46.06
60
1,786
x
2,322
$2,879.28
$47.99
70
2,184
x
2,840
$3,521.60
$50.31
* Variations with Summary results from rounding square foot calculations.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 32 CBRE
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, "CBRE") has inspected through reasonable observation the subject
property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil
and the entire inferior and exterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is
made as to such matters.
The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the "Report"), is as of the date set forth in the
letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected
levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based
upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of
fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or
other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date.
3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that:
(i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or
exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records
(including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may
affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on
the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss that may arise out of defects in title should be
sought from a qualified title insurance company.
(i i) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes
and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing,
etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and
exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent
structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no
representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not
qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system
problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a
sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity
of building systems.
(iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off -site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in
a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.
(iv) Hazardous materials are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances.
The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater,
mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property.
(v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid,
or solid, and no air or development rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights
associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report.
(vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in
the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the
value of the subject property.
(vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any
local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or
renewed for any use on which the Report is based.
(viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently or
super -efficiently.
(ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic
hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable
uses, building codes, permits, and licenses.
(x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to
assess the subject property's compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily
achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 33 CBRE
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
(xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and
no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor
reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property.
Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE's
attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information
inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial
negative impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE
reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no
responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover
them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such
conditions.
4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, property owner,
or owner's representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and
information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor's Parcel
Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building
areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating
expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report.
Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the
Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all
assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any
questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report.
5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or
information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit.
6. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have been disregarded with only real property being
considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property.
7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the
information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic
conditions utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the
expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. Actual
results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating
economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE
does not warrant any such projections.
8. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or
guarantee of any particular value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to
the value of the subject property. Furthermore, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort,
terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole
purpose of providing the intended user with CBRE's independent professional opinion of the value of the subject
property as of the date of the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any
investment or lending decisions based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor,
or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to
assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect
recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property.
9. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge
beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in
areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters.
10. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for
flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the
actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.
11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any
special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full,
comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no
responsibility for any situation arising out of the user's failure to become familiar with and understand the same.
12. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional
interests will invalidate such conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of
interests.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 34 CBRE
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
13. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing
use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to
be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use.
14. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes
only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be
removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report.
15. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written
consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication
for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the
intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any
court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the
Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written
consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made
available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable
law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its
conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in
connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user.
(D 2024 CBRE, Inc. 3� CBRE
Addenda
ADDENDA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
Addenda
Ad&
GENERAL DATA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
UO
P BLICPOCK
'0.0
L
0.0
L
0000000
- - - - - - - - - 74 - - - - - m - m 70�
55 44 33 22 11000
65 54 43 32 201.,10
Z5 64 53 42 301 .0
-07- - - 63 52 41,. o
296 94 62 510oo
295 236 83 61 0 0
294 285 2 .0
293 284 275 266 00
2
283 274 265 81 .0
2 255
292 2 6J4 22 .0
1. Zq 1. 282 273 254 245 236
272 26 235 22
��2 2 253 244 225 123
271 243 234 A
r 233 224 1 0
.2AII 252 204 184 154 3 1 2 122
251 242 Moo
141 232 223 203 183 173 153 31 # o
222 42
PW U 1 202 192 182 172 162 152 141
I- �2V- .2 1 20 1 191 181 171 161 151 .0 o
IWBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
A ST
00 200 400
Feet
m 0
ooring A
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
�23'1
AIR,
AQC,
D
71
Remnsula
PFF
100 400
mm,6��
Feet
m
V A Rai
-Al
Mooring A
I
7
PyrM.r%7q
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
PARK AVE
PUBLIC DOCK
u u
ir --------- ------
201 191 171 161 151 141 131 121 111 101
91
81
71
61 51
41
31
21
1
:202 192 172 162 152 142 132 122 112 102 92
82
72
52
42
32
22
12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- WSJ 23 103 93
-
83
73
53
43
33
23
13
- - - - - - - - - - - W
54
44
34
24
14
35
25
15
111111,36
26
161
17
Al n
150 300 11111P 411*
mmqm��
Feet
Mooring B
Lu
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS D I v i's ilo n
March 26, 2015
LLI
150 300
=06m�
Feet
6
Owl
__ IQ
A,�
o A& —�4
OL
luku"myVar.Lz I Lwl� i__� L_.� IL ,."k L_
W
Mooring B
B, Go
,AYL
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 25, 2015
100 100
Feet
LU
U-
87
46 36
26
HD1 C I
1
1
66 56
76 35
25
HD2C
86
55 45
65 34
75
24
HD3C
95
85
C 54 44
64 33
74
23
13
z
94
84
43
53
73 63 32
22
12
Q
%
% 93
83
42
72 62 52 31
21
11
% % 92
82
41
61 5
-
LU
% 91
81
71
nm�
-Z/,
0
0
0 7
�o il
0 110
7
0
IPA
Mooring C
Mp
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
F�
EmElli
Ol 100 100
F—t
0
0
0
A
Mooring C
0
01.4
.,Oak
—Jr.
0
roof
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
iRK�
PROMONTORY
BAY
HARBOR ISLAND DR
W W U—
> >
0 0
u u >
0
u
FA) Ell--IEE
BAYSIDE DR
- — — — — - — — - — - — — 7 — — — - — — - — — -
--7 -747-2 2F ll� 1 1
W -18 67 74 12 0 8 6 4 2
--Z--787-16 4 31
7Z 72 0
'r 76— -;4- -672 Z 4� 4�
17 15 13 11 9 7 - 5 3 L
1 55 53 51 49 47 45 D w --------
- — — — — — — - — — - - - - 43 23
1 25 wl
- .39 37 35 33 31 29 27w � w w w
n I - �-, n
ON
I I E) 150 300
m=16;;;;;mmmmj
Feet
Mooring D
�M
�'m
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
0
150 300
mm6m�
Feet
I -fts� —lift 7�7' r
0
.lb
?t
le
v,
V
CO
ix
Mooring D
11 7m.
--.mW4, $Mom 19;
T.,
And—,
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
0000000
PH Y
F-002 C
F-004
F-006
— - — — - — — - — — - — - - — — - — — - — — - — — - — - - — — - — - - - — - — — — — - — — — — — - F-008
F-010
F-022 F-020 F-018 F-016 F-014 F-012
F F-003 F-001
F-007 F-005
F-021 F-019 F-017 F-015 F-013 F-011 F-009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BAY AVE W
71 _15
Feet
Mooring
Number of Moorings: 22
Total Area: sq. ft.
NEWPORT MACH
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
September 24, 2018
0-
0
CIRCLE DR
SAY SHORE DR
I - — — - — — - - — — - — — — - — - - - — — - — — - - — — - — — — -
1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
— — - - — — - —
15 17
G
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
16 18
- - - - - - - -
0 100 200
Feet
Mooring G
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
MooringsG.mxd
mommi
100 100
Feet
&4 -v;rw. I A. I )v
0
Mr.
P
it.
fell
vi
2hp
%tv-
Ok
L
r 4, 0 4-4
Mooring G
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
LU Ce ::E
j 0 D Iz, LU
Cie !L
0
S� 0 Od UJI > ix
::E Od U-1
D CO
IZ Qd
c:::]
67r---———---———----
81A 71 A
61A
813 713
613
A13 13
812 712
612
Al2 12
811 711
611
511
A 1 1 211 11
1 810 710
610
510
A10 310 210
1 89 79
69
59
A 39 29
1 88 78
68
58
A9 H
8 38 28
1 87 77
67
57
A7 37 27
v 86 76
66
56
A6 36 26
1 85 75
I 8A
65
55
A5 35 25 1
NEWPORT CHANNEL
7A
6A
5A
AA 3A 2A
1 83 73
63
53
A3 33 23
1 82 72
8 81
62
52
A2 32 22
Ir - - - - -
71
61
51
Al 31
- - - - - - 2.1 - - - -
- - -
- -
F
A
mm%m�
11-1 1-10
Feet 11 NRa r k
BAY AVE
Cn
ID= C"N
F—F-7—TITIT-111-1 L-717717-7-FI-17
Mooring H City of Newport Beach
GIS D I v i's ilo n
March 26, 2015
0
t4
U16—
,,mom
. L
li
� 0 125 250
Feet
F.,'
LOA
IV
m mofial
2ft
WA
]was
Mooring H
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
1�1 / *N>
C,
V)
01
EITEIT
V)
121 21. flR m
mm6m� F-
Feet
uj
z
K
------------
516
e
615
515
71 A
61A
51A
AlA
813
713
613
513
A13
113
Lu%>
812
712
612
512
Al2
312
212
112
**
811
711
611
511
All
311
211
ill
.*
810
710
610
510
A10
310
210
110
PFONSIULA
89
79
69
59
A9
39
29
19
98
88
78
68
58
A8
38
28
18
107 97
87
77
67
57
A7
37
27
17 1
H
106 96
86
76
66
56
A6
36
26
16
105 95
85
75
65
55
A5
35
25
15
10A 9A
8A
7A
6A
5A
AA
3A
2A
1A
1103 103 93
83
73
63
53
A3
33
23
13
1102 102 92
82
72
62
52
A2
32
22
12
1101 101 91
81
71
61
51
Al
31
21
11
L= - = = = = - = - = = = = _ = _
= = = =
_ = =
= = _ = _ = _
= = _
= _ a
= 'UjhjjjjjmmL=
Mooring J
V)
LO
BAY AVE W
Tm
9
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
'A*
4F
-7 I�y 1111.0 . 6,
0 %
7
B I
3MEARL&AI-- A.
Marina "P
Wteidns'
Park
LID
0. L-.W.
I
Mooring J (0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
STRADA CENTRO
Z IZ :5
"r. d I
§ IZ.
z .2 0 z >
0 z
0 W 0 0
z oe —
< U 0
<
0
>
>
>
> V)
VIA LIDO SOUD
9 9 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-021 K-019 K-017 K-015 K-013 K-011 K-009 K-007 K-005 K-003 K-001
K
K-022 K-020 K-018 K-016 K-014 K-012 K-010 K-008 K-006 K-004 K-002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 110
ANCHORAGE WAY
Feet
NEWPOR7 BEACH
Number of Moorings: 22
44s)
K Mooring Total Area: 138,265 sq. ft. City of Newport Beach
14
GIS Division
September 24, 2018
Moorings—Aflas—d
Addenda
Addendum
APPRAISER LICENSE
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
ROBERT Z. JACOBSON, MAI
Lxecutive Vice 'resident
Valuation and Advisory Services
Cell. + 1909 227 2386
robert.locobson@cbre.com
www.cbre.com/Robert.]acobson
CLIENTS REPRESENTED
Institutional
— Prologis
— Blackstone
— KKR
— Panattoni
— IDI
— Altus
— Trojan
local
— Lewis Group
— March JPA
— HIP
Bank
— Deutsche Bank
— Wells Fargo
— Cantor
— Western Alliance Bank
— US Bank
— Connerica
— Citizens Business Bank
Self Storage
— Trojan
— Public Storage
— SmartStop
— ExtraSpace
— A-1
— SoCal
ROBERT Z. JACOBSON, MAI
Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI is the head appraiser in the Ontario office for CBRE Valuation &
Advisory Services. Mr. Jacobson joined the Ontario office in 2002 and has served
institutional as well as local clients on all types of appraisal and consulting assignments
throughout the Inland Empire. Mr. Jacobson also works in concert with the National Self
Storage Valuation Group that Is based out of the Ontario office.
Assignment specific experience includes Mr. Jacobson's appraisal of harbor usage -oriented
properties in Oceanside and Port Hueneme Harbors, and his access to and review of
CIBRE's vast resources which include appraisals of commercial properties and associated
water rights and associated rent determination in virtually every harbor along the California
Coast, as well as more harbor specific uses nationally including but not limited to:
Property Description
CBRE Harbor Appraisals
• Harbor Redevelopment
• Port - Market Rent Arbitration
• Multiple Marina Portfolio
• Marina Harbor Apartments & Anchorage
• Deep Water Bulk Container Facility
• Dry Stack and West Slip Mixed -Use
• Super Yacht shipyard & dryclock
• Shipyard & Dryclock
• Super Yacht Marina
REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS
Property Description
Industrial
• General Mills
• Proctor& Gamble
Self Storage
• Public Storage — Proposed
• SoCal Self Storage
Land
• Riverside Mining — Industrial
• Future Residential Land
CREDENTIALS
Location
Confidential, CA
Confidential, CA
San Diego, CA
Marina Del Rey, CA
Confidential, WA
Naples, FIL
Puerto Rico
Confidential, FIL
British VI
Location
Perris
Moreno Valley
Los Angeles County
Hollywood
Riverside
Adelanto/Victorville
Professional Affiliations/Accreditations/Certifications
0 Appraisal Institute, Designated Member (MAI)
0 Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California, No. AG035731
EDUCATION
0 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Bachelor of Science
Duel Major Finance and Accounting — Cum Laude
Size
Acres
239 acres
300 acres
900+ slips
966 unit, 321 slip
12,000 acres
350 slips
97,000 GSF
28 acres
30 slips
Size
SF
1,547,342
1,479,117
Units
2,065
1,007
Acres
223
1,150
CBRE
OF
Business, Consumer Services & Housing Agency
X 49
BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
4L #FOR"' REAL ESTATE APPRAISER LICENSE
Robert Z. Jacobson
has successfully met the requirements for a license as a residential and commercial real estate appraiser in the
State of California and is, therefore,, entitled to use the title:
"Certified General Real Estate Appraiser"
This license has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate Appraisers' Licensing and
Certification Law.
BREA APPRAISER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
3070653
AG 035731
Effective Date: July 8, 2023
Date Expires: July 7, 2025
Angela Jemrr(��, Bureau Chief, BREA
a
0
Z
m
04
0
m
CL
E
0
0
Iz
m
C14
N
t�
0
0
2:
(U
0
— cli Cl) -t
C
cr
t-
q-1
Ln
0
o
0
E
Din
!
LO
N
N
0,
u
M
0
0
>
CL
0
li
Lq
Ul)
tr)
LO
r-
m
a
0
aj
C2
(25
C%j
m
(D
r�
00
q-4
ca
CL
Z
CA
E
0
N
N
N
04
CN
c,4
C14
0)
0)
0)
())
0)
01)
oll
04
CJ
04
C�
Je
u
b.
tp�
OW
4A
to
0)
4j)
(A
6%
0
tz
(D
cr
c
0
C
0
E
0
a)
I
-t
C)
W)
-4
V
�,4
-t
-t
LO
w
V
CL
0
E
CL
0
m
0
u
CL
C4
m
C14
-1
C-4
0
9�
cl
C'4
12
W
4)
0
0
T
r
0
0
m
Cl)
14
14
LO
-S
r-
(D
no Ul)
.0
W
40,
0-
m tl
6
u
M
>
a;
LO
--i
-4
to
0
0
U-)
0
2
0
Cr)
m
N
C14
cli
x
t
41
z
8
Z
Co
cfi
�6
t-�
u
co
CN
N
N
Le)
m
o
CL
0
C:>
in
CD
LO
Cl
U-)
C�
LO
CD
Ln 0�
Ul)
z
0
(A
E
z
z
'T
00 0)
R
r-
1-4
-4
�q
"4
I-d -4
CQ4 CN
CNN
N CN
CN
N
cc
(D
U)
to
c)
0.
-.R
E
04
V)
CL 'r,
CL Q
U
'j:
0
CC
-
CIA
--
. .
0
,
>1
>,
-W
0
+j
= m
=
E
M
OD
.0
cq
a
0
co
0
w 0
w
IR
4) CL
(D
0
(Y)
'OD 0
>
4-
<
(D
.2
r
0)
c
M
0
Q
4-
cc
M
E
>
m
m cc
(D
cn
0.
E
cc
cu
Lcx
a)
0 c
3: 0
0
0 >
+-,
0
0
0
CL-L
a
0.
v
.2 0
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYo_
LEIFER, LLP X
VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Joe Stapleton
District I - Mayor Pro Tern
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Email: istayleton(&newportbeachea.gov
Mr. Erik Weigand
District 3 - Councilmember
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Email: ewei2and(&newPortbeachca.2ov
Mr. Noah Blom
District 5 - Councilmember
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Email: nblomAnewyortbeachca.2ov
Mr. Will O'Neill
Michael H. Leifer
Direct Dial: (949) 851-7294
E-mail: mleifer@paimierilawgroup.com
File No.: 41508-000
July 9, 2024
Mr. Brad Avery
District 2 - Councilmember
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California
Email: bavervAnewportbeachea.gov
Ms. Robyn Grant
District 4 - Councilmember
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Email: r2rantAnewportbeachea.gov
Ms. Lauren Kleiman
District 6 - Councilmember
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Email: lkleiman(a),newportbeachca.2ov
Ms. Grace K. Leung, City Manager
District 7 - Mayor, 2020 Mayor City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Center Drive, Second Floor, Bay E
100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660
Newport Beach, California 92660 Email: citycouncil(&,newportbeachca.20V
Email: woneiU(&neWDortbeachca.eov
Re: Objections to City's Proposed Actions Regarding Mooring Rates
Dear Newport Beach City Council:
We are hereby submitting objections to the City of Newport Beach's (the "City")
expressed intention to adopt the Harbor Commission's recommendation or the "alternative."
The City's recent posting of the agenda and staff report is unclear, deficient, and contradictory in
material aspects. The general thrust of the City's agenda packet is that the City intends to act
unlawfully toward offshore boat docking in the harbor —commonly referred to as offshore
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1950, Irvine, CA 92614-2518
(949) 851-7388 1 www.palmierilawgroup.com
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 2
moorings. The City's proposed acts concerning offshore moorings also reflect the City's
improper conduct as to other activities relating to the harbor.
The City has a duty to comply with its legal obligations as pertains to the City's tidelands
(including but not limited to the City's obligation to fulfill its fiduciary duties by, among other
things, assessing tideland user fees in a fair and non-discriminatory manner). City staff and
officials are furthermore obliged to comply with legal requirements imposed by statute and by
common law to refrain from violating conflict of interest laws. Moreover, the City has due
process and other obligations as relates to tideland users, including permittees. Aspects of the
proposed City actions constitute improper takings of property. And, despite the City's assertions
to the contrary, the City's proposed action(s) are not exempt from CEQA because they will
directly or indirectly impact the environment.
1. THE CITY'S ACTIONS ARE DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATE THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE BEACON BAY BILL
The City admits that it is bound by the provisions of the Beacon Bay Bill. The Beacon
Bay Bill expressly prohibits the City from discriminating "in rates, tolls, or charges ... for any use
or service... " with respect to the City's management, conduct, operation and control of the
tidelands. The Beacon Bay Bill states, in pertinent part:
"(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and
control of the lands or any improvements,
betterments, or structures thereon, the City or its
successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls,
or charges for any use or service in connection
therewith. [emphasis added]."
Section 17.60.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (which governs mooring permit
requirements) states that the mooring fees are to be based "...on a rent schedule established by
the Harbormaster, which shall be similar to the schedule used to collect rent from other tidelands
users in Newport Harbor." (NBMC § 17.60.040(h) [emphasis added].)
The City's proposed rate increase would result in not only one type, but at least three
types, of discrimination concerning tidelands users: (1) price or term discrimination; (2) use
discrimination; and (3) political or socioeconomic discrimination.
A. PRICE DISCRIMINATION
The evidence of discrimination concerning price and/or terms is overwhelming. A boat
can be docked to a mooring. It can also be docked to a pier. As conceded by the City staff
PALMIERI
HENNESSEY
LEIFER, LLP&
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 3
report, they are both forms of docking over tidelands.' Docking to a pier is a clearly superior
form of boat storage on the tidelands. Yet, the City charges much less for this vastly superior
boat storage option. The average dock permittee pays approximately $12-$30/month while the
average mooring permittee pays approximately $133-$138/month for a 40' mooring. Indeed,the
April 9, 2024 letter recently sent by the California State Lands Commission Staff to the City
("SLC staff letter") echoes the objections that have already been raised by existing and potential
mooring permittees. The SLC staff remarked in its letter: "Staff also observes a significant
disparity between the City's residential pier rates and mooring rates ... .. Disparity" is tantamount
to "discrimination" in this context.
Monthly Rate
Dock v Mooring
S_
5'. $481
M
U.
$12
Dock Existing 40' Proposed 40'
(190 sq ft) Mooring Mooring Rate
The City has set the mooring and dock rates at different times, making different
arguments, and reflecting different economic conditions. Non-discriminatory conduct and
fairness dictate that tidelands uses be appraised in the same economic time periods using the
same (or nearly the same) date of value. Did the City do so? No. The City has instead
strategically picked and chosen the valuation of and the setting of charges for docking in
different economic periods for supposed different groups of users who dock boats in the same
tidelands. The City's approach has resulted in improper "disparities" —in other words,
discrimination. In addition, the City now intends to cause further disparities between those who
have a permit to dock their boats offshore as compared to those who dock their boats on a pier.
1 In its staff report, the City recognizes the obvious: Docking a boat is docking, regardless of
whether the boat is docked to a floating metal ball in the channel or to a pier. (See, City's REP
No. 21-53 characterizing a mooring as a type of "boat storage.")
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 4
The resulting disparate impact on certain tideland users (i.e., dock rates as compared to offshore
mooring rates) is "use" discrimination. The City is playing a shell game where it is selectively
picking and choosing different criteria at different time points to rig the discriminatory results.
The City's discriminatory conduct is further manifested in its treatment of individual
mooring permittees as opposed to its treatment of certain favored mooring groups. While the
majority of mooring permittees are individuals, there are two yacht clubs (the Balboa Yacht Club
and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club) as well the Lido Island Community Association who
provide moorings to their members or residents. The City discriminates concerning terms of use.
For example, unlike the individual mooring permittees, these organizations are allowed to
sublease their moorings to members. 2
Despite the City's attempts to conceal this information from the public, a public records
request recently uncovered a June 13, 2024 email in which the City's Harbor Commissioner
confirmed that the Lido Island Community Association, the Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport
Harbor Yacht Club will be exempted from the anticipated rate hikes. This clear evidence of
discrimination runs squarely afoul of Beacon Bay Act's prohibition against discrimination "in
rates, tolls, or charges ... for any use or service..." of the tidelands. As proposed, the yacht clubs
and Lido Island Community Association will receive discriminatory advantageous treatment by
the City.
The City's decision to discriminate in favor of dock owners and other groups via rate and
terms is unlawful. The SLC staff warned the City in a recent letter that: "Charging less than fair
market rates for the use and occupation of granted sovereign land may constitute an
unconstitutional gift of public funds and a violation of the City's fiduciary duties...." The City
uses this threat as a sword in its proposed action with moorings. It also hypocritically uses its
position as tidelands manager as a shield when convenient to justify its discriminatory
favoritism. The City cannot have it both ways.
B. USE DISCRIMINATION
Starting with some fundamentals, the dock "owners" are tideland users just as offshore
mooring permittees are tideland users. They both dock boats by tying them over the submerged
tidelands. The tidelands are owned by the State and not the City, as the City merely acts as a
trustee for the public over these tidelands.
2 It is estimated that the Balboa Yacht Club obtains approximately $400,000 to half a million
dollars annually, and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club generates approximately $400,0000 to
$600,000 annually in profits from their moorings.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLPCX
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 5
A docking on a pier is a far superior form of boat storage as compared to docking
offshore to a mooring in the bay. There are intrinsic benefits that are incidental to ownership and
value of the adjacent above -ground fee land with a dock on a pier. Such a dock benefits the
adjacent land and home and vice versa. It is also easier to dock a boat to a dock on a pier than it
is to dock a boat to an offshore mooring. The dock owner merely needs to walk across his dock
to enter the docked boat, as opposed to the mooring permittee who must traverse open water to
access his or her boat. Additionally, a dock adjacent to a bayfront home has readily available
access to restrooms, fresh water and electricity.
Not only does the City inexplicably charge much less for docks, but the mooring
permittees are also subject to certain significant use restrictions that are not imposed on dock
owners. A mooring consists of little more than an anchor to the submerged tidelands and a line
to the mooring ball or balls. Thus, mooring permittees cannot construct piers and wooden docks
in the bay. And, unlike the dock owner (who pays much less with many less restrictions and
many more benefits), the mooring permittee is prohibited from leasing to a third party
It should also be noted that the costs incurred by the City in administering moorings are
low since the mooring permittee is required to bear the majority of those costs (e.g., buoys and
related equipment). This disparity is exacerbated when comparing the superiority of dock
tidelands usage in comparison to tidelands usage involving docking to moorings.
Notwithstanding the vast benefits enjoyed by dock tidelands usage, dock permittees pay
far less:
Boat Storage
Dock Permit Mooring Permit
I$1 1/mo
Aw"WWk-
6&iW-
TM_
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 6
A mooring user who docks to a metal ball in the harbor is using and getting much less but
will pay astronomically more. The City has apparently concluded that a vastly inferior type of
boat storage (i.e., a mooring), should command more money than a vastly superior form of boat
storage (i.e., a dock).
The City's indefensible position begins from the City's instruction to its real estate
appraiser that submerged, undevelopable tidelands should be (in fact must be) compared to and
predicated upon the value of bayfront residential land in Newport Beach. The City's appraiser
3
utilized this approach. Establishing mooring rates based on the value of Newport bayfront real
estate is untenable for many reasons. A mooring permit, as configured by the City, is not a
property right. The SLC staff agrees that such an approach is incorrect. The SLC has explicitly
warned the City that: "... staff disagrees that residential land values should be used as a basis
for valuing the offshore moorings, because the moorings' use is not connected with the
residential use." (4/9/24 letter from SLC to City.). Yet, obviously docks situated in front of
bayfront homes are frequently physically connected to the residential use. The City cannot
assess the "fair market value" of the offshore moorings based on the value of such real property
especially when the offshore mooring is unconnected with the residential use. The City
sanctions a valuation predicate which is prohibited and discriminatory. Value cannot be based
on a use which the mooring permittees cannot make. California law prohibits such a valuation.
(See, e.g., Wu v. Interstate Consolidated Industries (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1511; Humphries
Investments, Inc. v. Walsh (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 766.)
The City has not, and cannot, justify its inequitable disparity in boat storage treatment,
fees or fee increases.
C. POLITICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION
The City appears to concede that the majority of the mooring permits are currently held
by individuals who lack voting rights in Newport Beach. It is our understanding that only
approximately 42% of the mooring permits are held by residents of the City who are afforded
voting rights (and of that population, the number must be divided by the seven districts). The
City Council has succinctly, and accurately, remarked, "the mooring people do not vote."
The pie chart below illustrates the discrepancy between mooring permit holders based on
the city of residency.
3 The appraiser also made clear that his appraisal cannot be used and is invalid without
considering this approach.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 7
58%
Mooring Permit Holder City of Residence
42%
0 OTHER CITY 0 NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Districts
City ot Ne" B-ch
Newport Beach residents are in the upper echelon of wealth and income levels, and only
a select few members of the public are able to afford the prices commanded by the Newport
Beach real estate market. Many of the mooring permittees are not Newport Beach residents.
The large majority of dock owners live or appear to live, vote or could arrange to vote, in the
City of Newport Beach.
Historically, moorings offer a more affordable option for members of the public living
outside of the City limits who wish to enjoy recreational boating and access to the coast. The
City is maintaining and creating barriers to the public's ability to access and utilize the State-
owned tidelands. The City cannot discriminate against nonresidents. It cannot discriminate
against perceived non -Newport Beach socioeconomic echelons.
Allowing this type of politically or socioeconomic based discrimination is not only
inequitable but also runs afoul of the Beacon Bay Bill, the tenets of the California Coastal
Commission Act and other applicable laws (See, e.g., Coastal Act § 30001, stating "The
Legislature hereby finds and declares ... the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable
natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people...." [emphasis added]; see also,
City's General Plan R 8.6, R 9, R 9. 1, et seq. confirming that the City is required to ensure that
coastal access is accessible to the public regardless of socioeconomic status; Illinois Central
Railroad v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 3 87, 452-453 [municipalities hold tidelands and submerged
lands in trust for the benefit of the public at large] .)4
4 It should furthermore be noted that Harbors and Navigation Code § 40 requires that, "Facilities
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 8
11. THE CITY'S APPRAISAL IS UNRELIABLE.
An appraisal analysis which concludes that a rate for an inferior mooring should be
greater than the fee charged for a dock is, to put it charitably, flawed and unreliable. In fact, it is
absurd. Yet, this is precisely the scenario posed by the City's appraiser. The nonsensical
conclusion reached by Mr. James Netzer should have caused the City to immediately recognize
that the analysis was seriously flawed.
There are a myriad of other problems with Mr. Netzer's 2023 mooring appraisal. The
defects in the City -directed report, include, but are not limited to, the following:
Use of Ingppropriate CoMparables: Using sales of bayfront residential property
as "comparables" for undevelopable submerged tidelands is ludicrous. This
approach irreparably taints the entire appraisal analysis. At the very minimum, it
shows that the City and the appraiser are biased.
Impact of Inco!porating Non-CoMparables in Appraisal: Mr. Netzer's appraisal
report concedes that his valuation conclusions are predicated the valuation
methodologies which he chose to employ. (See, 2023 Appraisal Report, stating:
"The reconciliation process involves a thorough review of the valuation process
and supporting data used in each of the valuation approaches." [emphasis added].)
All three of Mr. Netzer's appraisal approaches are tainted by his use of non -
comparable real property and renders the entire appraisal report unreliable.
Inconsistent Ci!y Conduct as to Valuation Approaches: In 2015, the City rejected
the ratio analysis as a valid means of determining dock rates. Yet, the City has
now reversed course and contends that the same ratio analysis should apply to
moorings. The City cannot have it both ways — it cannot cherry -pick which
methodologies it wants to apply in order to predetermine the discriminatory end
result. This is particularly true where, as here, the City has already conceded that
docking to a mooring and docking to a dock both constitute docking over the
tidelands. Both to be treated as methods of boat storage.
Use of Ingpplicable Rate of Return: Mr. Netzer's appraisal report utilizes a rate
of return which is applicable to income generating investments in commercial
real estate improved properties, but which is inapplicable to tidelands usage.
(See, 2023 Netzer Appraisal, p. 26.) There is also evidence that the City's
in harbors and connecting waterways established under the provisions of this division shall be
open to all on egual and reasonable terms." (Emphasis added.) The City has imposed unequal
and unreasonable terms.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 9
appraiser was directed to undertake such approach by City staff and/or Harbor
Commission personnel.
Failure to Take Into Account Mooring Permittees' Cgpital Investment: The
appraisal fails to take into account the capital investment (estimated at $40,000 to
$60,000) made by a mooring permittee. Nor does the appraisal address biannual
mooring maintenance fees. The City and its appraiser fail to take into
consideration the mooring permittees' investment in their boat which they
presumably have nowhere else to store. A boat owner who has no real storage
options becomes a boat seller —a seller in distress.
Failure to Consider Termination Provision (Among Other Terms): The City and
its appraiser ignore the City's termination rights. The mooring permit allows the
City to terminate the mooring permittee's rights if the mooring is subleased
without the written permission of the Harbormaster. (NBMC § 17.25.020(L);
Mooring Permit, page 2, § 6.) In fact, the appraiser wrongfully considered illegal
subleasing as a basis for his conclusion.
Disregard of Historical Tideland User Rates: The appraisal conveniently ignores
relevant past history as pertains to tideland user rates set by the City pursuant to
its asserted obligations to do so. More specifically and stunningly, the City in
2015 set fair market rent and terms for docks. The dock is the superior, vastly
superior, type of boat storage. It is the top of the market for tideland users. Here,
the City directed its appraiser to turn the market upside down. The City is not
excused from ignoring that absurd result.
111. THE CITY'S APPRAISAL PROCESS HAS BEEN TAINTED BY THE CITY'S
AND ITS APPRAISER'S IRREPARABLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
A. THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND THE NEWPORT HARBOR
COMMISSION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE PROHIBIT INDIVIDUALS
WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROCESS.
The Political Reform Act ("PRA") prohibits City commissioners, employees, and
consultants from influencing or participating in City decisions in which they have a material
financial interest. (Gov. Code, §§ 82041, 82048, 87100; 2 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 18700.)
This includes but is not limited to any decision affecting business interests or real property worth
at least $2,000. (Gov. Code, § 87103.) The PRA further prohibits City commissioners,
employees, and consultants from influencing or participating in City decisions materially
affecting any business entity in which the disqualified individual is an officer, director, partner,
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 10
trustee, manager, or employee. (Gov. Code, §§ 82033, 82035, 87103.) A decision made in
violation of these prohibitions can be enjoined from taking effect. (Gov. Code, § 91003; see
also, Woody's Group v. City ofNewport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4 1h 1012 [bias alone, either
actual or an unacceptable probability of it, on the part of a municipal decisioninaker sitting in an
adjudicatory capacity is enough to show a violation of the due process right to fair procedure].)
Additionally, Section VIII.C. of the Newport Harbor Commission's Rules of Procedure
expressly requires "[a]ny Commissioner who is disqualified from voting on a particular matter
by reason of a conflict of interest shall publicly state or have the Chair state this determination
and the nature of such disqualification in open meeting." Section VIII.C. further provides that
"[a] Commissioner who is disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest in any matter shall not
remain in the council chambers during the debate and vote on such matter and shall request
permission of the Chair to depart until the item is closed."
B. THE CITY'S APPRAISER HAS HAD A MATERIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
The City's valuation process has been tainted with numerous conflicts of interest. The
City's selected appraiser is an officer and board member of the Newport Aquatic Center
("NAC"), which has a substantial financial interest at stake —its existence is dependent upon use
of the tidelands. The NAC maintains a sizeable dock and fleet of small watercraft in Newport
Harbor. The NAC was also expressly listed as a location for review comparison in the City's
RFP for the mooring appraisal. The NAC also leases the land for its facility from the City.
Records show that the City's appraiser was directly involved on behalf of the NAC in
lease negotiations with the City while he was simultaneously performing the City's mooring
appraisal. In a June 26, 2023 email, Chris Blank (NAC President and brother of Harbormaster
Paul Blank), informed the City that the City's appraiser would be attending a meeting on behalf
of the NAC to discuss the NAC's ground lease with the City. The City went on to grant the
NAC a generous, no -fee 3 0-year lease extension (with two additional I 0-year extension options)
less than three months before NAC's representative/City Appraiser provided the appraisal as
directed by the City.
Yet, the City's appraiser purported to certify in his appraisal that "I have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest
or bias with respect to the parties involved" and that "I have no bias with respect to the property
that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved in the assigm-nent." That was not the
case. Any one of the conflicts above disqualified the City's appraiser.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page I I
C. THE CITY ALLOWED HARBORMASTER PAUL BLANK TO
PARITICPATE IN THE RATE VALUATION PROCESS DESPITE HIS
ADMITTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Harbormaster Paul Blank was conflicted the moment the City hired him in May 2021.
During a Harbor Commission meeting in 2022, Mr. Blank represented that he is a mooring
permittee who "does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations
related to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings." Mr. Blank ftuther
represented that this was disclosed and discussed with the City Attorney before he was hired:
CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
Harbor Commission Staff Report
M-y 11,2022
Agia.d. It.. N. 6 5
To, HARBOR COMMISSION
FROM' 1 131-11 �tr
pb_.,�M,Ibh- q
(949)
TITLE' Harbormaster Upi — April 2022 AclivirLies
HaTbormaster Update —April 2022 Activities
May 11. 2022
Page 5
Initiatives were launched resulting in better data capture and statistics reporting
Future improvements will include customer satisfaction survey data analysis and
calls for service location analysis
Participated in the Emergency Operations Response to the following.
* Elly oil spill
* Tsunami warning
* Three severe weather occurrences
* Sewage spill into the harbor
* Out of control stolen boat in the harbor
The Harbarmaster has disclosed the arrangements made, at h is own expense to alleviate
any conflict of interest associated with his ongoing use of an offshore mooning permit.
While undergo , ng the recruitment process: any and all known possible conflicts of mlorest
were disclosed. Prior to the City making an offer of employment, all such possible
conflicts were discussed with the City Attorney Agreements and arrangements
satisfactory to all relevant parlies wete made during that discussion The Harbormaster
was entrusted and empowered to make determinations guing forward related to any
conflict discil In support of this arrangement, the flarbormaster
does riot participate in discussions or the development of recommeridations related
to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings
reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related to offshore
mooring permits are made by Real Property Administration staff
does not deliberate or vote on any policy related matters before the Harbor
Commission
Is expected to answer questions related to policy implementation and impacts on
Harbor Department operations
hereby discloses that the offshore mooril permit he erjoys is hold in ar irrevocable
trust the beneficary of which is the Balboa Yacht Club. The Balboa Yacht Club holds
all the offshore mooning permits adjacent to the Subject mooring
hoping to avoid other conflict of interest concerns also hereby discloses any
significant finaricia� interests related to the Balboa Yacht Club including a
membership certificate are held in the same irrevocable trust
further discloses that all remaining financial interests in either the subject offshore
mooring permit or membership in the Balboa Yacht Club are do minimis
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 12
First, "agreements and arrangements satisfactory to all relevant parties during that
discussion" concerning the City's hiring of the Harbormaster, does not in any way satisfy the
public interest in avoiding the appearance of impropriety and conflict. Moreover, despite these
representations, the City and the Harbormaster improperly involved the Harbormaster in the
mooring valuation process for over two years. As proposed by the valuation process, the City
intended to increase revenues enormously for itself. Public records show that Mr. Blank
submitted numerous staff reports to the Harbor Commission on mooring rental rates between
2022 and 2024. This includes reports in January, February, and March 2022—while Mr. Blank
was serving as Centennial Commodore of the dock owner and mooring field operator Balboa
Yacht Club.
Email correspondence also shows Mr. Blank was directly involved in influencing the
City appraiser's analysis of mooring rates. In one 2023 email, Mr. Blank instructed Mr. Netzer
to "[p]lease just apply the 30' rate you determine to that mooring but definitely add an entry in
the report that includes the 25' category." Although Mr. Blank belatedly claimed to have
recused himself in March 2024, he and the City allowed his admittedly improper participation
for two -plus years. Such participation irreparably tainted the process.
D. THE CITY FURTHER ALLOWED OTHER INDIVIDUALS WITH
MATERIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO ENGAGE IN THE
PROCESS.
The conflicts do not stop there. Harbor Commissioner Rudy Svrcek owns a dock and
boat in Newport Harbor. The Deputy City Attorney previously advised Mr. Svrcek to recuse
himself from discussions and from voting on mooring realigninent due to his dock permit being
within 500-1000 feet of a mooring field. Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham owns a
bayfront home and boat in Beacon Bay, which maintains a community dock —a tidelands user.
Yet, Commissioners Svrcek and Cunningham failed to recuse themselves from
participating in the City's mooring valuation and rental review process. Moreover,
Commissioner Cunningham acknowledged in a July 2020 email that he already had "two long
conversations" with Mr. Netzer about his appraisal and that the "net net when we are ready"
"and funded" is the "appraisal results will look much different than the 2016 numbers." How did
Commissioner Cunningham know what the "net net" would be when the City's appraiser had yet
to perform the appraisal? Why was Commissioner Cunningham talking to the appraiser about
appraisal results in July 2020 when the appraisal RFP did not even go out until 202 1 ?
It is incumbent on the City to comply with its own rules, the PRA and the Harbor
Commission's Rules of Procedure. The City failed to do so.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 13
IV. THE CITY'S CONDUCT CONTRAVENES FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that a city is not immune
from antitrust laws. (See, City ofLafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (1978) 435 U.S. 389
[rejecting the City of Lafayette's argument that antitrust laws protect only against conduct by
private businesses and do not apply to municipalities].) The well -established antitrust rules
prohibiting illegal conduct such as collusive price-fixing, bid rigging and the like therefore apply
to the City here. (United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940) 3 10 U.S. 150, 223 [stating,
"Under the Sherman Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising,
depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity ... is illegal per se ...... ].
Following the Socony case, courts have broadly defined price fixing as an instance where the
defendants have in any way agreed on a course of conduct affecting prices (See, e.g., Arizona v.
Maricopa County Medical Society (1982) 457 U.S. 332; Fisher v. City ofBerkeley (1984) 37
Cal.3d 644, 658-659.)
There is reason to believe that the City (through its staff and consultants) and certain
entities in San Diego may have been working in concert with one another in connection with
mooring rates. 5 Mr. Netzer's appraisal cites to a tentative proposal for mooring rate increases by
the San Diego Unified Port District pursuant to which the San Diego Port District apparently
provisionally agreed to a mooring ratio of 50% of slip fees. Mr. Netzer uses this provisional San
Diego data to support his "mooring to slip" methodology and appraisal conclusion.
It is believed that at the time that Mr. Netzer referenced and disclosed the terms of the
tentative mooring rate hikes being contemplated in San Diego, those terms were a part of certain
confidential negotiations which were not made public. This, of course, begs the question of how
such confidential information was available to the City's appraiser in advance of the information
being made available to the public. Additionally, there is the concern that negotiations about
rates, rather than agreements upon rates, influenced a rate determination by an appraiser for the
city.
We also note that Mr. Netzer's appraisal claims that the SLC approved the rates being
proposed in San Diego. This is untrue, as corroborated by the SLC. The SLC remarked in its
April 9, 2024 letter to the City:
5 In addition to potential price-fixing concerns, federal antitrust laws are further triggered by the
City's monopoly over the tideland user fees and its unfair business practices with respect to the
mooring permittees.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 14
Second, the appraisal references proposed mooring rate Increases by the
San Diego Unified Port DIstrict, another trustee of sovereign land, and states that
they were approved by the State Lands Commission. Just like in Newport Bay, the
State Lands Commission does not have review or approval authority over the Son
Diego Unifled Port District's mooring rates and therefore dId not approve the Port's
mooring rate increases.
Please advise whether Mr. Netzer and/or his company have been involved with appraisal
of mooring rates in San Diego, including but not limited to the rates being considered or actually
charged by the San Diego Port District. If he had no such involvement, the City should readily
agree to confirming the same in writing.
V. THE CITY'S LAST-MINUTE PROPOSED "ALTERNATIVE" SCHEME IS
PLAGUED BY FUNDAMENTAL DEFECTS.
A. THE "ALTERNATIVE" SCHEME IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
THE CITY'S GAME -PLAYING AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY.
The above issues, along with the myriad defects plaguing the City's conduct and 2023
appraisal report authored by Mr. James Netzer, have been presented to the City on a number of
occasions. To date, the City has been unable to provide legitimate or logical answers to these
issues. Public record requests have been met with claims that certain documents are either not
publicly available or do not exist.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately track down the City's ever -changing
positions prior to its decision to act. For example: In 2015, the City rejected the very same
appraiser's ratio valuation analysis. Yet, in 2023, the City embraced the ratio valuation analysis
that it had already rejected. California law makes clear that, "California public policy will not
permit a litigant'to blow hot and cold'by taking the benefits of a doctrine when it suits his
purpose and then repudiating the same facts when it is no longer profitable or to his advantage to
doso." (Kunec v. Brea Redevelopment Agency (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 511, 525; see also,
Woody's Group, Inc. v. City ofNewport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.App.4 th 1012, 1016 [Justice
Bedsworth aptly noted in this case involving the City of Newport Beach, "You cannot change the
rules in the middle of the game"].)
Now, rather than addressing the relevant issues head-on, the City intends to sweep the
objections raised by the mooring permittees under the rug by proposing, at the eleventh hour, an
46alternative" scenario for mooring permittees. This proposed "alternative" utilizes the 2023
appraisal as a threat (without ever responding to the questions and objections asserted by the
mooring permittees). Perhaps not surprisingly, the City's newest "alternative" scheme was
conveniently posted during the July 4th holiday period in an effort to reduce public participation
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 15
and opposition of the mooring permittees, potential mooring permittees and members of the
public. The City apparently deliberated concerning this "alternative" plan during closed session
meetings but chose to conceal its existence until just days before the upcoming public meeting.
Thus, rather than abiding by a linear and well -considered process which would ensure
that the mooring permittees are treated in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner, the City
has instead jumped all over the place, careening from one position to another without any logic
or accountability. Not only that, but the City has apparently transacted secretive deals with
private yacht clubs which were not offered to the individual mooring permit holders. The City's
conduct in this regard calls to mind a game of "whack -a -mole" as opposed to the fair and
equitable process that the Beacon Bay Act guarantees.
Stated another way, the City is a moving target. The City's treatment of the mooring
permittees throughout this entire process has been not only unfair but is also irreconcilable with
the fiduciary duties owed by the City to the mooring permittees.
B. THE STAFF REPORT IS REPLETE WITH VAGUE AND
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED
"ALTERNATIVE" PLAN; MORIEOVER, THE STAFF RIEPORT FAILS
TO PROVIDE THE MOORING PERMITTEES WITH ADEQUATE
INFORMATION ABOUT NEWLY PROPOSED SCHEME.
The July 9, 2024 Staff Report (the "Staff Report") raises even more issues about the
City's treatment of the mooring permittees. It contains only skeletal and vague information and
fails to provide the mooring permittees with sufficient time or information to fully evaluate the
City's newest positions. In addition, the Staff Report is replete with problems in and of itself.
These include, but are not limited to, the following:
Lack of Analysis: The Staff Report does not identify what analysis, if any, was
undertaken by the City in connection with its shift to the alternative proposal. The
mooring permittees have submitted a public records request to obtain all documents
involved in or relied upon by the City in the creation of the alternative plan since the City
has not provided any of that information to them.
Lack of Information Provided to Mooring Permittees: As referenced above, the City's
last-minute pivot to the proposed alternative plan is troubling for many reasons - not the
least of which is that the Staff Report provides only negligible and vague information as
to how the City proposes to implement the alternative plan. The Staff Report includes
sweeping generalizations without identifying specifics. How are the mooring permittees
supposed to provide a reasoned response to a vaguely described alternative proposal
which was sprung on them at the last minute over a holiday weekend? The City's tactics
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 16
are unfair, especially since the City, according to itself, is the sole arbiter of what
information it chooses to release to the mooring permittees and when, if ever, it chooses
to release that information.
Retaliatory Motive: Given the timing of the City's alternative plan, it would appear that
the alternative plan was not motivated any genuine desire to address the objections raised
by the mooring permittees but was instead drafted in an effort to retaliate against the
mooring permittees. The alternative plan is draconian and punitive toward mooring
permittees (e.g., If you do not agree with the rent rate increase, then the City will take
your moorings and charge you even more rent in doing so).
Ci1y's Admission That Docks and Moorings Are Both Types of Boat Storage: The Staff
Report acknowledges that, "... staff interprets that charging different rates for the same
type of use that does not have a different value (e.g., a resident versus non-resident rate
for the same mooring), would be a discrimination in rates and is prohibited by SLC."
(Staff Report, p. 2.) The Staff Report further concedes that offshore moorings are a type
of boat docking. (See, Staff Report, p. 1, T I ["The City of Newport Beach manages the
tidelands in Newport Harbor, which includes parts of the harbor used for docking
boats (called mooring fields)...." (emphasis added)].) This underscores the key point
that dock owners and mooring permittees are similarly situated in that they are both
docking boats over the tidelands. There is no legitimate justification for the vastly
superior docking situation to be charged far less and while having far greater rights.
Private Yacht Clubs and Exclusive Commurifty Given Favorable Treatment: The
alternative plan calls for private yacht clubs and an exclusive community to receive
discriminatory favorable treatment. The purpose of the Beacon Bay Bill and other
Coastal Commission legislation is to ensure the ability of the public to use the tidelands.
(See, e.g., Coastal Act § 30001 ["The Legislature hereby finds and declares ... the
California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring
interest to all the people....] [emphasis added].) The City turns the Beacon Bay Bill
upside down by favoring yacht clubs and exclusive neighborhoods over the public.
Creation of More Classes Results in Additional Discrimination: From the vague
information provided to date, it appears that the "alternative" scheme creates even more
City -created "classes" of tideland boat dockers (e.g., dock owners, onshore moorings,
offshore moorings, private yacht club mooring holders, new mooring permittees, city
licensed mooring holders, etc.). The City simply creates new labels when it wants to
discriminate. Doing so, however, does not alleviate or excuse the inherent
discrimination.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 17
Historical Treatment of Other Tidelands Users: It is our understanding that, to date, the
City has never required any other tidelands boat dockers to involuntarily forfeit their user
rights in the manner that is being proposed under the alternative plan. Thus, this is yet
another example of the City treating similarly situated tidelands boat dockers in a
discriminatory manner.
Continued Omission of ALiy Response to the Mooring Permittees' Previously Raised
Objections: The Staff Report fails to even attempt to respond to the objections previously
raised by the existing and/or potential future mooring permittees. The City once again
continues to ignore the valid points raised by these individuals.
Gift of Public Funds: Furthermore, the Staff Report again evades any discussion about
its determination of dock fees vis-d-vis mooring permit fees. The City claims that it must
increase the mooring permittees' rates by an exorbitant amount because it would
otherwise be considered an unconstitutional gift of public funds. Why is the City
unconcerned about charging dock owners reduced rates with greater rights over the
tidelands? Applying the City's logic, wouldn't the situation with the dock owners'
superior and broader use of the granted sovereign land for much less money over a much
longer period constitute a past and ongoing gift of public funds in violation of the City's
fiduciary duties as a trustee of State-owned land? If the treatment of the dock owners
was not and is not a gift of public funds or gift of public land, then it cannot be disputed
that charging the mooring users less than the dock owners is likewise not a gift of public
land or funds.
C. THE "ALTERNATIVE" PLAN VIOLATES THE MOORING_
PERMITTEES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Under the City's alternative plan, the mooring permits would automatically convert to a
City -owned moorings which would be subject to the short-term license provisions of the
6
Newport Beach Municipal Code. The City would concurrently assume ownership of the
mooring equipment that is currently owned by the mooring permittees, such as the mooring
chains, mooring balls and weights.
The City's plan institutes a taking. More specifically, it is an uncompensated taking not
in compliance with the Eminent Domain law or the United States and California Constitutions.
6 The conversion would take place upon the occurrence of certain conditions; however, all
mooring permits owned by individuals will transform into a City license in no more than eight
years regardless of what might transpire. The private yacht clubs are to be treated under a
different set of rules.
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 18
Nothing in the alternative plan calls for the City to pay just compensation to the mooring
permittees even though the City will acquire ownership of the mooring equipment (which is
currently owned and maintained by the mooring permittees) upon conversion of the permit into a
license. To the contrary, the City intends to increase the mooring rates despite the taking of the
mooring permittees' personal property. This scenario therefore presents a textbook case of an
unconstitutional taking pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' due process clauses as
well as the Fifth Amendment's taking clause ["nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation"].)'
D. THE CITY'SPROJECT TRIGGERS CEQA ANALYSIS
The City's proposed project is not exempt from CEQA. The City's plans to make
changes to the harbor, (including "re -aligning" mooring fields in the harbor), the precipitous rate
increases and other threatened "alternative" schemes will trigger mooring permittees to respond
by, among other things, removing their chains, mooring balls, weights and other associated
hardware. The removal of mooring equipment by permittees and reinstallation of the mooring
equipment by the City or others constitutes a project which would necessarily impact the sea bed
and potentially stir up harniftil toxins. CEQA review is therefore necessary.
V1. CONCLUSION
Please be advised that this letter contains a summary of the arguments and objections to
the proposed mooring rate increase/alternative scheme and does not constitute an exhaustive list
of arguments and objections. The existing and potential mooring permittees therefore reserve all
rights to revise and/or supplement their arguments and objections as appropriate. Moreover, the
existing and potential mooring permittees hereby incorporate by reference the following: (a) all
public records produced by the City; (b) all documents sought by the mooring permittees
pursuant to a public records request but not produced by the City; (c) all documents which relate
or refer to disputes involving the City concerning boat storage from 20 10 to the present; (d) all
documents which relate or refer to the City's tideland usage; and (e) all objections, comments,
arguments and positions asserted by others concerning rates for tideland usage.
' Other due process concerns are also raised by the City's proposed plans. For instance, the
mooring permittees have invested a significant amount of money to obtain and maintain their
moorings. Despite the sizable capital investment made by the mooring permittees and their
vested economic interests, the City is now wrongfully threatening to force them to lose their
rights. (See, e.g., Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4 1h 1519.)
PALMIERI
HENNESSEYO
LEIFER, LLP(X
Newport Beach City Council Members
Page 19
We trust that you will seriously consider these objections to the proposed treatment of the
mooring permittees in relation to dock permittees and others boat dockers in the harbor that
receive (or stand to receive) much more favorable treatment by the City. It is genuinely hoped
that the City will comply with its obligations imposed by the Beacon Bay Act as well as the legal
obligations imposed by state and federal law.
MHL:tb
Very truly yours,
Newport Mooring Association
Objection to Proposed Offshore Mooring Fee Increase
Date: February 14th, 2024
To: The Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Reference: February 14th, HC meeting agenda item 6-1 Mooring Rates
The Newport Mooring Association strongly objects to the furtherance of DISCRIMINATION
against mooring holders in Newport Harbor. In a separate position paper, the Newport Mooring
Association will show the history of systemic discrimination against Mooring Holders, as
compared to the treatment of all other users of Newport Harbor. An outline of our significant
concern over the history of apparent discrimination is included in Exhibit 5 below. Mooring
Holders already pay far more to the City of Newport Beach ("City") for use of a small area of the
harbor compared to what is paid for by marinas, waterfront homes and virtually all other uses.
Now, the Harbor Commission is on the verge of substantially increasing the effect of the
Discrimination Hammer in what appears to be an ongoing effort to force out people of low
income and who may not be residents of Newport Beach. Make no mistake, the weaponization
of the Appraisal Hammer is just a farther attack on mooring holders that appears to be part of an
on -going effort to rid the harbor of outsiders. The fees being charged mooring holders are
already four times more than what is being paid by waterfront homes for use of the tidelands in
front of their home for their private docks. This proposal would increase the disparity
drastically, so that the gap would be up to 10 times more than what private dock owners pay, and
over five times more than what commercial docks and homeowner associations pay.
The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) also objects to the process by which this proposed
rate increase was developed, which excluded public input and review. These objections pertain
to proposed offshore mooring increases. Two years ago, the NMA provided a report objecting to
the then -proposed increases in onshore mooring rates, which is a matter of public record. The
agenda item in the previous regular Harbor Commission meeting concerned only offshore
moorings. The appraisal submitted entitled offshore mooring rates, and the study session
announced at the Harbor Commission meeting was for a February I" special meeting on only
this matter. If, in the event that there is any discussion of on -shore mooring rates at the study
session, the NMA strongly objects to including on -shore moorings as there no study of fair rates
for onshore mooring rates (small boat storage 18ft or less) has been performed or included in this
process.
Overview
The Newport Mooring Association ("NMA"), has studied the proposed fee increase, staff report
and Netzer appraisal ("Netzer Report"), and finds that:
• The proposal significantly threatens affordable recreational boating
• The proposal highly discriminates in fees charged by the City of Newport Beach for other
tidelands use in direct violation of the Beacon Bay Bill
• The proposal violates the reported and stated goals of the City to provide affordable
boating access
• The proposal and methods used in the Netzer Report contradict the customary method
used for determining fees charged for tidelands use, including the State Lands
Commission, and contradicts the City's own 2017 appraisal and valuation of tidelands for
almost all other uses, and
• The Netzer Report itself is based on an erroneous methodology and contains numerous
false assumptions and errors.
Given the radical nature of the proposal, the clear discrimination in rates prohibited by the
Beacon Bay Bill, and the clear contradiction in methods, rates, and conclusions in the City's own
formal appraisal report for values charged for use of the tidelands, the NMA is requesting that
any further discussion by the Harbor Commission be delayed no fewer than 90 days to allow the
Commission, staff, and the stakeholders to provide input on any proposal to raise rates for the
offshore recreational moorings.
Discussion
Boating and sailing are the heart and soul of Newport Beach. One needs only look at the logo of
the City shown everywhere, from signs as you enter the City to the City's website and letterhead.
The social and recreational activities in the area, the commercial, restaurant, and entertainment
opportunities of the City, and the unique values of properties, are all part of the current and
historical connection to boating and sailing. Put another way, if the tidelands were just an open
marshland, like those seen up and down the coast of California, Newport Beach would be
nothing like it is today.
Preservation of this tradition is not possible without affordable and entry level boating and
sailing. Young boaters and sailors learn their skills on smaller or older boats that are in the
harbor only because there is affordable access. The Harbor Commission and the City should
commit to supporting affordable boating and sailing. The NMA is concerned that this
Commission will be the first in the history of Newport Beach to take steps to displace, diminish,
and destroy the importance of sailing and boating in Newport Beach.
2
1. Discrimination in Rates
The Beacon Bay Bill, often referenced by the City of Newport Beach as guiding its
administration of the harbor, provides that:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or improvements,
betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination
in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith (See Exhibit 1).
The proposed fee increase will clearly discriminate in rates charged for the use of the same
tidelands. For example, in 2017 the City received an extensive appraisal from George Hamilton
Jones ("GHJ Appraisal") which assessed the rental charges to be applied to most of the uses in
Newport Harbor, most of which were commercial, with some non-commercial uses. Uses not
covered were called "Other Uses." In effect, the rates charged for every one of these uses, from
large marinas, small marinas, fuel docks, shipyards, yacht club guest slips and "other uses"
looked at the square footage of tidelands used by the particular use and applied a similar rate
(with some very minor adjustments), including a few discounted rates. The general non -
discounted rate was $.76 (76 cents) a square foot per year for the use of that area of tidelands.
That amount was indexed to a CPI adjustment which is still in use, and today's published rate is
$.93 per square foot per year, including the rate for "other uses." This rate has already been
published by the City for 2024.
Applying the City's published rates, the annual, non-discriminatory rate for a 40 ft. offshore
mooring would be $948.60 per year (1020 sq.ft. x $.93 = $948.60). This is a rate somewhat less
than the current rate even after adding extra square feet for lines to the buoys.
Unless the Commission and City were to recommend a substantial increase in rates being
charged to all uses of the tidelands (e.g., the various Newport Beach large marinas, small
marinas, restaurant docks, shipyards, guest docks, homeowner association slips and moorings,
and waterfront home docks), singling out the recreational offshore moorings for a 300% to
500% increase in annual fees for the very same tidelands use would clearly be a discrimination
that cannot be justified in any manner. Further, such exorbitant rates, tolls, or charges in uses
would be an outrageous violation of the City's obligations under the Beacon Bay Bill, as well as
provisions of the California Public Resources regulations.
11. Discrimination Against Outsiders and Protected Persons.
Without having to conduct any studies, it appears that offshore mooring holders are far more
likely to live outside the City than homeowners with private docks and persons who rent
expensive slip space for their yachts. When one combines the significant overcharges and
discriminatory charges now in existence, and the radical proposed increases that further
3
discriminate, in addition to the many other ways mooring holders are treated unequally, this
raises the obvious question of whether the proposed increases are intentionally or unintentionally
designed to keep people out of the harbor if they do not live in Newport Beach.
Also, it would appear that the existing discriminatory policies, plus the proposed
increases, do and will have a disparate impact on protected minorities. Therefore, the City
should not double down on such discriminatory policies.
111. Violation of the City's Reported Commitment to Affordable Boating
The NMA believes that the staff report incorrectly implies that the City's hands are tied
and that the City must charge maximum fair market permit fees. In reality, the City has in the
past taken a more reasonable, fair and affordable approach to setting mooring fees.
A. The staff report should point out that that the precedent -setting City resolution on
setting mooring fees (Res #2016-17) gives the City authority in setting fair,
reasonable and affordable mooring fees.
B. In the past, the City and its staff have incorrectly stated that the state lands grant (aka
Beacon Bay Bill) requires the City to charge fair market rents (as if they were
landlords in the private sector renting real estate without regard to other factors,
including providing accessible and affordable recreational use of the tidelands). The
"fair market" language in the Beacon Bay Bill, however, relates only to the private
residential lots in Beacon Bay, and not the tidelands in general (See Exhibit 1). Any
local ordinance or resolution that relies on or repeats the incorrect reading of the
Beacon Bay Bill cannot be used to justify increases in recreational use fee in Newport
Harbor. In fact, the City has always recognized special treatment for recreational use
considerations. See, for example, the City's justification for lower rates charged for
recreational and other uses of the tidelands in relation to boating activities — the City's
Resolution 2017-49, Section 3 (Exhibit 2).
C. The staff report should also include City Council Policy F-7 (E) (Exhibit 3) which
gives the city authority to keep fees at an affordable level for recreational purposes.
D. The State Lands Commission ("SLU), the state agency responsible for oversight of
these tidelands, has approved and utilizes better methodologies (i.e., benchmarking)
in determining fair and reasonable tideland fees. Resolution 2016-17, NBMC
17.60.060 (D) and the Beacon Bay Bill (Exhibit 1) give the City city-wide discretion
in determining the best methodology in determining fair and reasonable rents for
moorings. Moreover, in the Tornales Bay Mooring Valuation Report (Exhibit 4), just
one year ago, SLC has used a totally different methodology; a methodology
4
consistent with the method used by the City of Newport Beach in its GHJ Appraisal
2016/2017 valuation of rates for different uses of the tidelands in the harbor.
E. The staff report fails to include City Policy 3.3.2-3 (LCP/CLU) (Exhibit 6) whereby
the City will continue to provide moorings as an important source of low-cost public
access to the water and harbor. The omission of this policy from the staff report is a
failure to inform the Harbor Commission, City Council, and the general public that
the City has made a promise to keep mooring fees reasonable and affordable, which is
an important factor in determining any discretionary fee increase.
IV. The Netzer Report Ignores State and City -Approved and Established
Methods
The Netzer report ignores the methods used by both the City, the City's appraiser, and by
State Lands when valuing an appropriate fee to be charged for the use of tidelands in general,
and in Newport Harbor in particular. Staff and counsel should review both the 2016/2017 GHJ
Appraisal and City resolution regarding the rates and methods applied to valuation of the
Newport Harbor tidelands, and also review and include the methods used by SLC in its recent
determinations of rates to be charged in SLC's Tomales Bay Report.
V. The Netzer Report Uses the Wrong Methods and Contains Numerous
Errors.
A. Overview regarding Mr. Netzer's Approach.
1. Ignoring Established Methods. The report totally ignores the methods of both the City in
the recent past appraisal, and the methods used by State Lands, and is a major mistake. The
State Lands report clearly says it is using the principle of "Substitution" — namely what the State
would receive for the same tidelands if rented to a known use such as a marina owner. In effect,
that was the same method used by the 2016/2017 City -approved appraisal. The Netzer report
states clearly that it is not using the principle of Substitution, ignores established methods, and
instead makes up methods never seen before as the report struggles to establish a type of
"comparable" that the Netzer report admits does not exist, or did not want to go to distant
harbors to find.
2. Use of Wrong Comparison. Using the price of expensive land and comparing land to water
(tidelands) makes no sense and is not any type of established method. Put simply, you can build
a house on land, but not on water, and the values simply can't be compared.
5
3. Not Understanding a Mooring. To "compare" two properties or two items one needs to
understand how the two are alike and not alike. The Netzer report clearly shows a lack of
understanding of how moorings are used, and compares a mooring to a slip without proper
evaluation and proper offset for:
- lack of access,
- cost of having to rent a slip or dock space for a dinghy or tender for access.
- lack of electricity,
- cost of batteries needed to start an engine,
- lack of water,
- lack of restrooms,
- lack of dedicated parking,
- lack of trash removal,
- lack of lighting and security
- dealing with and cost of installing and maintaining the buoy system,
- cost of installing and maintaining the lines to the buoys,
- the monthly cost of cleaning the lines that get full of marine life,
Each of the above would need to be understood with an appropriate off -set when attempting to
compare a mooring to dock space.
4. Failure to Account of Capital Investment. In comparing a mooring to a slip, there is no
consideration of the fact that, unlike a person renting slip space, the person using a mooring is
likely to have a substantial capital investment of $40,000 to $60,000 in addition to biannual
mooring maintenance fees. A person renting a slip does not have any capital investment or
maintenance cost for the slip and is required to pay only rent for the slip.
B. Specific Flaws in the Netzer Report
1. The Report Fails to Reduce Value for the Cost of Dinghy Dock Access.
- All other harbors have dinghy docks for access; Newport Harbor does not.
- To equalize comparisons, the cost of a slip for a dinghy or tender should be subtracted from
Netzer's proposed fees.
- $500 to $700 per month is the current slip rate at marinas in Newport Harbor for dinghies and
tenders 9 ft to 14 feet.
2. The Report Fails to Use Established Methods Used by State Lands Commission and
Used by Newport Beach for All Other Uses. The SLC uses a benchmark of 5% to 6% of the
rents received by a marina. Then, the SLC divides the amount by the square feet of tidelands
exclusively used by the marina to establish a yearly fee per square foot of tidelands used. This
11
46value per square foot" is then used in other applications. The City of Newport Beach followed
this standard method for virtually all uses in Newport Harbor in the 2016 George Hamilton Jones
Reports, with yearly increases as is currently shown on the City's website. Netzer breaks away
from the Standard Method used by both the State and the City of Newport Beach for all other
uses in favor of what appears to be a convoluted contrived method aimed at clearly
discriminating against mooring holders, many of whom do not live in Newport Beach and many
of whom are of a protected class of persons.
3. The "Ratio" of Slip Rates to Mooring Rates is Unreliable, per Mr. Netzer in a Prior
Appraisal and Compares Apples and Oranges. "The Ratio Analysis ... is notjudged to be a
reliable measure ofFair Market Rent ". These are Mr. Netzer's words in his 2016 appraisal of
offshore moorings (page 20). We concur; it's like comparing apples to oranges, and as shown
below does not consider the lack of access in Newport Harbor.
4. The Ratio Approach Compares "Slip Rates to Mooring + Dinghy Dock" Rates in Other
Harbors, Instead of Slip Rates to Newport Moorings Without the Same Access.
- All other harbors that have large mooring fields provide two things, not one. Their mooring
rates are for both an area of the tidelands for a boat, plus use of dinghy docks for a dinghy or
tender for access to the moorings. Newport Harbor rates are for only one of these two things.
i.e., the use of a small area of tidelands. However, it does not provide dinghy docks for access
to the moorings. The real ratio referred to in the Netzer report is for a mooring plus a 24/7 dock
space for dinghies as this combination is compared to slips. That ratio cannot be used in
Newport Beach Harbor which does not provide half of what is offered in other harbors when
someone rents a mooring.
- The ratio between slips and moorings without access, can be calculated by comparing the 2016
George Hamilton Jones report and the 2016 Netzer Report. When comparing 2016 rates for slips
to the 2016 approved rates for offshore moorings, the ratio was approximately I to 14, or about
6% per lineal foot. As far as ratios are concerned, there is no reason why the ratio between
Newport Harbor slips and Newport Harbor offshore moorings without access would have
changed in the last few years.
5. The Report Greatly Exaggerates Tidelands Used by Larger Moorings. The area of
tidelands used by larger -sized moorings will increase only marginally on a square foot basis.
Comparing the square feet used by a 65-foot boat to the area used by a 40-foot boat will result in
no significant difference in rates charged per lineal foot. Here's a simple example:
7
40 foot mooring: allowing for extra distance to each buoy and the buoy itself = (40+28) x 15
(beam) = 1020 sq ft.
65-foot mooring: adding the extra distance to each buoy and the buoy itself — 65+34 x 16
=1,584 sq feet.
The 65-foot mooring rate is 1.55 the rate of the 40-foot mooring, but on a lineal foot the rate is
the same. For example, using the current rate of $38 per foot, a 40-foot mooring is $1,520, and
using the same rate per lineal foot, a 65-foot mooring would be $2,356 compared to the current
rate for a 65-foot mooring at $38 per lineal foot = $2,470. The idea of charging the larger
mooring substantially more per square foot cannot be justified.
6. Mr. Netzer Appears to have Misstated the Facts in his Public Comments. Upon inquiry
by one or more commissioners at the January Harbor Commission meeting, many of us recall
that Mr. Netzer stated that he had been in discussion with a person or persons in San Diego who
advised him that (a) the Port Authority had approved a substantial increase in rates for San Diego
moorings (which have dinghy docks) and that this had also been approved by the California State
Lands Commission.
Members of the NMA contacted the owner of the San Diego Mooring Company, the Port
Authority, and State Lands Commission and found that (a) there have been no approvals, (b) the
request has not been made public yet and public input has not yet been requested, and (c) the
State Lands Commission has received no request and had not even heard of the matter.
What is more, the San Diego Port Authority is not being asked to "approve" new rates, rather,
they are being asked to amend a current restriction in the lease with the mooring company that
would allow them to test the market and experiment with rate increases up to a new requested
higher cap in rates. What may or may not be a rate increase and how the market responds over
time is not a matter that any appraiser would ever consider at this time in rendering an opinion of
values and rates.
7. Valuation of Home Docks is an Unacceptable Never -Before -Used Method, a False
Comparison, and Will Raise Home Dock Taxes and Fees.
- The method does not account for location — homes with docks in more desirable locations will
show a higher square foot value for the home, which does not equate to more value for use of the
dock.
- The method fails to explain why a private dock next to an expensive home will rent for the
same as a private dock next to a substantially less valuable home.
The method is derivative on derivative and is almost never used.
The method, if used, would require home dock fees to be increased 20-fold.
H.
- The Stop the Dock Tax cry will likely be heard again by homeowners with docks, if subjected
to such an increase.
VI. The Harbor Commission Needs Time to Consider the Forthcoming
Independent Appraisal
The NMA has requested an independent appraisal of market rates for offshore mooring
rates. As announced a few days after the publication of the Netzer report at the Harbor
Commission Meeting in January, that report was scheduled to be completed three to five weeks
later. Following that announcement, the Harbor Commission chose to set its study session
approximately a week before the independent report is due. It is unclear why they would want to
have the study session without having the benefit of reviewing the independent report. Be that as
it may, the NMA urges the Harbor Commission to take no action until they have the benefit of
the independent report and set another study session with the full Harbor Commission to allow
further study and public input after the independent report is available to the public.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE
For the reasons stated above, and given the major public interest in the issue - the
importance of current and future boating and sailing in Newport Harbor, the extraordinary
proposed increase in fees, what appears to be a proposal that clearly discriminates in use rates in
a clear violation of the Beacon Bay Bill, and the clear contradictions in methods, rates, and
conclusions in the City's own formal appraisal report for values charged for use of the tidelands
as stated above, the NMA is requesting that any further discussion by the Harbor Commission be
delayed no fewer than 90 days to allow the Commission, staff, and the stakeholders to provide
input on any proposal to raise rates for the offshore recreational moorings.
Newport Mooring Association,
Approved by the Board of Directors
M
EXHIBITS
10
Exhibit 1 — Relevant Sections of the Beacon Bay Bill
Ch. 317 ] STATUTES OF 1997 CHAPTER 317
An act to amend Sections I and 2 of Chapter 74, and to add Section 2.5 to the Statutes of 1978,
relating to tide and submerged lands in the City of Newport Beach.
[Approved by Governor August 18, 1997. Filed with
Secretary of State August 18, 1997.]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section I of Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978 is amended to read:
Section 1. There is hereby granted to the City of Newport Beach and its successors all of the
right, title, and interest of the State of California held by the State by virtue of its sovereignty in
and to all that portion of the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, bordering
upon and under the Pacific Ocean or Newport Bay in the County of Orange, which were within
the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, on July 25, 1919; the
same to be forever held by the city and its successors in trust for the uses and purposes and upon
the following express conditions:
(a) The lands shall be used by the city and its successors for purposes in which there is a
general statewide interest, as follows:
(1) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of a public harbor, and for the
construction, maintenance, and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways,
and streets, and other utilities, structures, and appliances necessary or convenient for the
promotion or accommodation of commerce and navigation.
(2) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of public bathing beaches, public
marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the general
public, and for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operation of all works,
buildings, facilities, utilities, structures, and appliances incidental, necessary, or convenient for
the promotion and accommodation of any such uses.
(3) For the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the lands in their natural state and
the reestablishment of the natural state of the lands so that they may serve as ecological units for
scientific study, as open space, and as environinents which provide food and habitat for birds and
marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.
11
(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the city or its successors shall not, at any time,
grant, convey, give, or alienate the lands, or any part thereof, to any individual, firm, public or
private entity, or corporation for any purposes whatever; except that the city or its successors may
grant franchises thereon for a period not exceeding 50 years for wharves and other public uses and
purposes and may lease the lands, or any part thereof, for terms not exceeding 50 years for
purposes consistent with the trust upon which the lands are held by the state and with the uses
specified in this section.
(c) The lands shall be improved without expense to the state; provided, however, that nothing
contained in this act shall preclude expenditures for the development of the lands for the
purposes authorized by this act, by the state, or any board, agency, or commission thereof, or
expenditures by the city of any funds received for such purpose from the state or any board,
agency, or commission thereof.
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands
or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or
its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges
for any use or service in connection therewith.
(e) The state shall have the right to use without charge any transportation, landing, or storage
improvements, betterments, or structures constructed upon the lands for any vessel or other
watercraft or railroad owned or operated by the state.
(f) There is hereby reserved to the people of the state the right to fish in the waters on the lands
with the right of convenient access to the waters over the lands for such purpose, which rights
shall be subject, however, to such rules and regulations as are necessary for the accomplishment
of the purposes specified in subdivision (a).
(g) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, the city may lease
the lots located within Parcels A, B, and C described in Section 6 of this act for the
purposes set forth in this act and for terms not to exceed 50 years. The consideration to be
received by the city for such leases shall be the fair market rental value of
such lots as finished subdivided lots with streets constructed and
all utilities installed. The form of such leases and the range of consideration to be
12
received by the city shall be approved by the State Lands Commission prior to the issuance of
any such lease. All money received by the city from existing and future leases of those lots
shall be deposited in the city tideland trust funds as provided in Section 2.
13
Exhibit 2 - Section 3 of Resolution 2017-49
Section 3: The City Council sets the rental rates, phase -in, and
adjustments contained in the attached Commercial Tidelands Rent
Calculations For Commercial Uses Located Upon Tidelands for Shipyards,
Yacht Club Guest Slips, and Free Public Access Docks (not associated with a
restaurant) at less than fair market value. Pursuant to City Council Policy F-
7(E)(6), the City Council finds charging less than fair market value rent for
these specific uses promotes the goals of the City to further marine -related
services and activities. More specifically, the City Council finds charging less
than fair market value rent for these uses promotes public recreation
facilities and marine services to the general public, furthers the policies and
objectives of the Beacon Bay Bill, and allows for continued operation and
improved accessibility to the public. Thus, the charging of less than fair
market value rent for these uses of the Tidelands is a matter of state-wide
concern that benefits the citizens of the State of California.
14
Exhibit 3 - City Council Policy F-7 (E)
NB City Council Policy F7 (paragraph E) allowing city to discount for recreational public use:
E. However, in some circumstances the City may determine that use of a property by
the public for recreational, charitable or other nonprofit purpose is preferred and
has considerable public support, in which case the City may determine that non-
financial benefits justify not maximizing revenue from such property. In such
circumstances, the City has a vested interest in ensuring that the lessee of such
property operates the activities conducted an or from the property in the manner
that has been -represented to the City throughout the duration of any lease or
contract with the City.
15
Exhibit 4 - Tomales Bay Mooring Valuation Report
(Excerpt re Mooring Fee Methodology)
Meeting Date: 12/17/20 -Work Order Number: W27247 Staff: D. Tutov, K. Foster
Staff Report 28 - LAND TYPE AND LOCATION: Sovereign land in Tornales Bay, Marin County
Category I Benchmark Methodology
Leases are issued by the Commission for private recreational facilities such as
docks, piers, and buoys/mooring poles. These facilities offer many of the same
amenities as a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of
boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. In this manner,
these privately -owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial marina
berth/buoy. Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair return
and a fair rental value is based on what an individual would pay for a similar
substitute site in a commercial marina. Since a Commission -leased site for a
privately -owned pier or dock is a reasonable substitute for a marina berth, a lessee
occupying state land should pay a similar rate for the leased site as the state would
receive for leasing the land to a commercial marina.
The current methodology for setting rent for berthing vessels at docks and piers
occupying state-owned sovereign land is based on the principle of substitution
described above. The first step in setting the Tomales Bay Berths Benchmark is to
survey local marinas to determine their rental rates. Marinas usually rent their berths
on a per -linear -foot basis, based on the length of the berth or vessel. For benchmark
purposes, the average surveyed rental rate is used. The rate is multiplied by the average
or typical berth length as indicated in the survey data. Based on these inputs, the
annual gross income is calculated. For Category I benchmarks the State's rent is based
on a 5 percent rate of return of this annual income, which represents a comparable fair
market compensation rate for the use of State-owned sovereign land. The State's rent is
then converted to a per -square foot basis using a table calculated by the California
State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways 2005 publication titled "Layout and
Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities" (DBW berthing publication). This
publication provides formulas and tables for calculating the submerged land area
needed to accommodate various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other
variables, the formulas account for the berth length, berth layout (single or double),
16
and the type of vessel (powerboat or sailboat). The publication can be requested from
the Department of Boating and Waterways.
Category 1 Tomales Bay Benchmarks
The Commission has been using the Tomales Bay benchmarks since 20 10. They were
last updated in 2015, when the rates were set at $0.114 per square foot for berths and
$125 per buoy.
For determining the proposed new rental rates, the following summary
describes the methodology. More detailed information is included in Exhibit C. A total
of four marinas and/or buoy fields in Tomales Bay was identified. However, due to the lack
of comparable rental data information for three of the locations (Marconi Cove Marina,
Inverness Yacht Club, and Lawson's Landing), the Tomales Bay Resort (previously Tomales
Bay Lodge and Marina, and the Golden Hinde Marina) was the only marina located in
Tomales Bay used in the analysis for this benchmark.
Because of the limited number of marinas in Tomales Bay, a survey was done of other
nearby marinas outside of Tomales Bay that might be used in absence of the three
marinas acknowledged above. Four nearby marinas with slips were also used: Spud
Point Marina, Mason's Marina, and Porto Bodega in Bodega Bay, approximately 20
miles northwest; and the Petaluma Marina on the Petaluma River, approximately 24
miles northeast. Thus, a total of five commercial marinas with slips was used in the
analysis of the current Tomales Bay benchmark.
These five marinas with berths reported a total of 652 berths available to the public, or an
average of 130 berths per marina. The average occupancy was reported at 85 percent.
The survey found that berth sizes in Tomales Bay, Bodega Bay, and the Petaluma River ranged
from 12 to 80 linear feet, with an average of approximately 31 linear feet. Rent for berths is
commonly expressed in terms of dollars per linear foot (per month). The survey data
yielded an average rent for berths of $6.20 per linear foot.
The benchmark rental rate for berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth length
by the average monthly rental rate. The product is then multiplied by 12 months to arrive at
the gross annual income. The gross annual income is multiplied by 5 percent to
get the income attributable to the submerged land. The income attributable to
the submerged land is then divided by the amount of submerged land needed to
accommodate the average berth length within a marina.
17
Using the DBW berthing publication described above, the submerged land area used in
this benchmark analysis is based on a double berth layout (on the premise that it was the
most economically efficient for the marina operator) and represents an average of the
powerboat and sailboat berths.
From the tables in the publication, a submerged area of 865 square feet is shown as
being necessary to accommodate the 31-foot average slip length indicated by
the survey.
Taking all the inputs into account, the proposed benchmark rental
rate is calculated as follows:
31-foot average berth size x $6.20/linear foot average berth rate
$192.20/berth/month
$192.20/berth x 12 months =
$2,306[berth/year $2,306 x 5 percent of
gross income = $115-30 $115.30 865
square feet = $0.133/square foot
PROPOSED BERTHS BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE = $0.133/SQUARE
FOOT [NMA Comment. This this the annual, not monthly rental rate]
Other than the leases being issued by the Commission, there is no independent market for
buoys in Tomales Bay. Therefore, the current minimum annual rent of $140 is proposed to be
applied per buoy. The minimum rent for a Recreational Use lease is set by California Code of
Regulations, title 2, section 2003, subdivision (b), and as revised by Commission action on
June 28, 2019 (Item 92, June 28, 20191.
PROPOSED BUOYS BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE = $140/BUOY
The table below summarizes the comparison between the 2015 and 2020 benchmark rates (Note
by NMA — these are annual, not monthly, rates).
Figure 1. Tomales Bay Benchmarks
Tornales Bay Benchmark
2015
2020 [NMA note: fee per year]
Category I Berths
$0.114/square foot
$0.133/square foot
Category I Buoys
$125
$140
[NMA Comment: The entire report can befound here]:
https:lZslordwordpressstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpressdata/202O/l2/l2-17�
20 28.pdf
18
Exhibit 5
Outline of Concerns over Apparent Historic Discrimination
by the City of Newport Beach against Mooring Holders
Moorings on the State Public Tidelands in Newport Harbor have been in existence
for over 100 years and have provided an important source of access for boating
both within Newport Harbor, the California Coast, and the Pacific Ocean. The
granting statutes enabling and allowing the City of Newport Beach, including but
not limited to the Beacon Bay Bill, disallow discrimination related to the
administration of the tidelands among different uses both in the letter of the laws as
well as the spirit of the law. This outline suggests discrimination over the last 20
years by the City Newport Beach as it relates to these 100-year-old moorings.
A Few Examples of Apparent Ongoing Acts of Systematic Discrimination
Against Mooring Permit Holders.
1. Killing Access to Moorings.
Historically, shore moorings that provided access to offshore moorings were
readily available. Over time the shore moorings were transferred to people who
did not have offshore moorings. This created the need for dinghy docks for
dinghies and tenders to access the offshore moorings, similar to virtually every
other harbor in California and the United States that has a substantial number of
offshore moorings. However, for decades the City has consistently ignored
requests to provide real access for in -water dinghy docks for access to moorings.
The City's consistent reply is there is no place available for such access. Yet at the
same time, the City has found such areas and used them for other projects.
2. Overcharging for the Costs to Administer Moorings.
The City collects about 1.5 million dollars per year from offshore moorings, when
the cost to administer the moorings, in our view, may be less than $300,000 per
year (unless you allocate inappropriate costs related to the harbor). Note the
mooring permit holder is required to maintain its buoy and equipment, so other
than collecting fees and inquiring about boat insurance and other contact
19
information, very little costs are associated with the administration of moorings.
Yet, over the last 20 years the City may have collected over 20 million dollars in
excess fees without creating a single in -water dinghy dock to provide reasonable
access. A mooring without access is like the sound of one hand clapping. It's just a
method of making the acquisition and use of a mooring unattractive to most
people. The exception might be local residents who have home docks, local slips,
or access to a friend's dock for access to offshore moorings.
3. Failing to Provide Access While Building Dock Facilities for Access to
Restaurants and Businesses.
While the City has claimed for decades "there is no space", the City has built
docks for short-term tie ups to benefit businesses such as restaurants. For example,
this is true of Marina Park, (reported to have been built at a cost of 40 million
dollars) which created a dock that appears to be 200 feet long in order to allow
boaters going to the restaurant at Marina Park a place to tie up, and for use of
approximately 25 large boat slips (for boats over 40 feet) and 18 or more small
boat slips. At the same time, not a single dock space was created for use by a
motorized 9-to-10-foot dinghy for use in accessing a mooring (one 40-foot boat
slip equals 8 in -water dinghy spaces). These slips, many of which are not used
most of the year, are directly in front of the two biggest mooring fields. As a very
minor concession, the City did allow "racks" for storage of a non -motorized
rowboat, inflatable, or kayak, but these have to be lifted up and hauled to the
shoreline in order for them to be rowed out to a mooring, if the mooring holder is
physically able enough to do so. These are nothing like the real access afforded by
having a motorized electric or outboard dinghy in the water, as provided for in
virtually every other harbor with moorings.
4. Charging Fees that are 4 Times, or More, for Tidelands Used by an
Offshore Mooring Compared to What is Charged for All Other Uses.
For the same area of tidelands used by an offshore mooring, the City charges
homeowners with docks one -quarter of what it charges for an individual mooring.
In addition, an offshore mooring permittee is currently charged substantially more
than the published rates charged by the City for almost all other uses, including
commercial uses. At the same time, the City is now considering raising these rates
so the discrimination will be up to 20 times more than what homeowners with
20
docks pay, and 5 to 10 times more than what commercial users pay for the same
amount of space. Put another way, the other users are charged far less for the use
of the same area of tidelands they use. In most cases these other uses are
commercial uses, where the permit holder is making a profit. In general, the State
is allowed to charge less for uses that are not commercial, not more.
As shown in the City's public posted rates, annual fees paid by restaurants with
docks, marinas for releasing its slips, and homeowners with docks that sit on the
same tidelands are charged far less than the annual fees set for mooring permit
holders. Calculating rates based on the square feet of tidelands used is the standard
method used by the State Land Commission when establishing the fair and non-
discriminatory rates to be charged for use of tidelands, including offshore
moorings in the state. Recent reports and appraisals from the State Lands
Commission clearly demonstrate this is the proper methodology.
Ironically, many people would argue that tidelands which touch the shore have a
higher square foot value because of easy access when compared to offshore
tidelands with limited access. As such, it could be fairly argued that the use of
tidelands for offshore moorings should be charged even less than what is charged
for tidelands that touch the shore; yet the City of Newport Beach charges 5 to 10
times more for use of the offshore mooring tidelands.
5. Attempting to Make Access to Moorings Dangerous and Inaccessible by
Eliminating Space Needed to Get On and Off Moorings, While Proposing to
Increase Space for Boats on Homeowner Docks.
Currently before the Coastal Commission is a proposal to crowd together boats in
mooring fields (which make it much more difficult to use moorings) in the name of
making "open water" views for homeowners, while at the same time not asking the
yacht clubs that have single -point mooring fields to bring their boats closer
together. By way of background, the yacht club mooring fields use approximately
twice the amount of tidelands space per boat than all the other public mooring
fields. That's because these are "single point moorings" where a boat could swing
in a 360-degree circle depending on the wind and tidal currents. However, no one,
including me and all other mooring field permittees that I know, would ask these
mooring fields to change to a different system that uses less of the tidelands.
21
Having noted the discrepancy and the fact that no one would consider asking the
yacht clubs to put boats closer together, keeping the yacht clubs mooring
configurations Oust like keeping the other mooring field configurations), is
important. Yacht clubs' single -point moorings are easier to get on and off and
allow for other uses such as small boat races within these single -point fields. Both
systems work well together. San Diego, for example, has both single -point and
double -point moorings and both serve an important public purpose.
6. Prohibiting the Rental of Moorings While Allowing the Rentals by
Homeowner and Others.
If unoccupied, the City allows tidelands used by homeowners, restaurants and
others to be rented by the permit holder. However, the City does not allow
mooring permit holders to rent offshore moorings. Not only are mooring holders
treated differently from homeowners and others for the use of the same tidelands,
the City has also granted itself exclusive rights to rent unoccupied offshore
moorings and retain 100% of the rent charged to visiting boaters. Although
mooring holders pay the City a permit fee, own the mooring hardware (buoys,
chains and tackle), and pay to maintain their mooring, they receive no
compensation from the City for renting unoccupied moorings.
7. Claiming that the City is Attempting to Increase Access While Killing
Access to the 100 Empty Moorings.
According to the Harbor Commission, at any given time there are approximately
100 vacant moorings. As noted above, the City has the right to rent these out to
both visitors coming in for a few days as well as for people seeking affordable
places to keep and use boats. For over 20 years, the City could easily have
increased use of these 100 empty moorings. However, the City has set the rental
rates so high that the vacancies remain. While a few are rented, the vast majority
sit unused. The reason is obvious. The City intentionally sets the rental rates as
high as the cost of having a boat on a slip a neighboring harbor, so that most
boaters are priced out of the market.
The City has suggested that one reason for the vacancies is that they cannot offer
boaters a 3 � 6, or 12 month lease, and that discourages the use of these 100
moorings. They claim that they cannot offer longer -term leases because the
22
mooring pen -nit holder has the right to put a boat on the mooring at any time, so the
would-be long-term lessee is not interested if they can be asked to move on short
notice. This explanation has no merit. First, most vacant moorings have been
vacant for years and a simple inquiry will reveal if there are any plans for
occupancy. So while it might be a theoretical concern, most people will
understand this is a remote risk in most cases. Second, the Newport Mooring
Association has proposed that the City ask vacant mooring holders if they would
agree to not put a boat on a mooring for a certain period, such as 6 or 12 months, in
exchange for a relief of having to pay mooring fees during that time. Having
presented this obvious solution, the Harbor Commission never even studied the
proposal, suggesting that it is more important for the City to keep the water free of
boats on moorings, and enhance some homeowners' harbor views, than it is to
actually provide additional public use of these empty moorings.
Simply put, by over -charging for the 100 moorings, in addition to the other acts
and omissions noted above, the City has shown a systemic attempt to keep
moorings vacant and through various means drive the diverse group of mooring
holders, including many protected minorities, out of the City.
Effect of Discrimination
The discrimination is wrong and needs to stop. It violates plain decency as well as
state and federal laws. This discrimination in rates and charges violates the
Beacon Bay Bill (often referenced by the City of Newport Beach as guiding its
administration of the harbor) which provides that:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or
improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors
shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service
in connection therewith
What is more, without having to conduct any studies, it appears that offshore
mooring holders are far more likely to live outside the City than homeowners with
private docks and persons who rent expensive slip space for their yachts. The
combination of the significant overcharges now in existence, the excessive
increases being proposed, and the many other ways mooring holders are treated
unfairly, raises the obvious question of whether the City is intentionally or
23
unintentionally trying to keep people out of the harbor if they do not live in
Newport Beach.
Even more concerning, without having to conduct any study, it would appear that
the existing discriminatory policies and proposed increases do and will have a
"Disparate Impact" on protected minorities. Therefore, the City should reconsider
such policies.
24
Exhibit 6 - City Policy 3.3.2-3 (LCP/CLU)
3.3.2-3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an
important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor.
3.3-2-4. Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize interference
Mh navigation and where shore access and support facilities are
available.
3.3.2-5. Continue to enforce the
ordinances that require
moored and docked
vessels to be seaworthy
and navigable and thereby
preserve the positive image
of the harbor and promote
public use of the water.
3.3.2-6. Protect,
and where
feasible,
enhance and
expand
guest docks at
public facilities, yacht clubs
and at
privately owned -
marinas,
restaurants and
other appropriate locations,
A
A
11" Stleal boat launch and mishore moor ngs
3.3.2-7. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and
services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking
facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out
stations and other features, through City, County, and private means,
3.3.3 Harbor Support Facilities
Harbor support facilities are uses, equipment, and vessels that provide repair,
maintenance, now construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, clean�ng,
and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting the harbor. Harbor support
facilities are considered essential to maintaining a working harbor.
Increased environmental regulation and real estate price inflation in coastal
communities have impacted a number of harbor support businesses. Those
businesses that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations.
Those that are more water dependent have been involved in land use conflicts with
residential and other land uses. Newport Reach has used land use controls as the
primary method to provide for the continuation of harbor support uses and minimize
land use conflicts, However, additional strategies and incentives may be necessary
to protect these facilities.
Local Coastal Prograrn
Coastal Land Use Plan
3-36
25
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey. Jennife
Subject: FW: mooring rate increase one question
Date: July 09, 2024 5:36:57 PM
From: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9,2024 5:36:51 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: mooring rate increase one question
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Lowry <winnerl436@aol.com>
Sent: July 09, 2024 5:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: mooring rate increase one question
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I am sure you have received many many questions about the Mooring rate increase but I have one question I have
not seen posed and that is how did we get here?
this increase of four or 500% has to be the result of something significant to require that additional amount of
revenue and there have been hundreds of city Council meetings over the years and this has never been brought up
years and years ago the need to increase the rates this high so again my question is how did we get here? ??
no one has explained what the city is going to do with all of these revenues or is there some additional cost problem
with the harbor department that has never been brought to light so please explain to all of us how did we get here
requiring this massive increase????
thank you
buzz lowry
call
Sent from my Whone
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting on July 9, 2024
Date: July 11, 2024 7:45:46 AM
From: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 7:45:38 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting on July 9, 2024
From: Jamshed Dastur <jhdastur@aol.com>
Sent: July 10, 2024 2:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Stewards of the Harbor <stewardsoftheharbor-info@210680278.mailchimpapp.com>
Subject: City Council Meeting on July 9, 2024
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attacfnmnts unless you recognize the sender and know the
;ontent is safe.
Mayor O'Neill 8v City Council members:
I take no particular pleasure in saying that yesterday was a sad day
in the annals of City Council meetings. The sheer arrogance and
nonchalance with which an issue of financial importance to the tune
of $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 affecting over 1000 families was
rushed through, will be an indelible blot on this Council's credibility
as representatives serving their constituents. A simple request to
postpone decision on a subject of such importance, considering the
last minute, highly ambiguous, major changes cobbled up to
appease some of the opposition, fell on totally deaf years. It was as if
the Council members had not heard one word of the very legitimate
issues being raised by dozens of attendees.
Over the past couple of years, many of us have questioned the
patently absurd increase is mooring rental requested by the Harbor
Commission, based on a provably flawed analysis by a consultant.
We prepared for the July 9 meeting, with the understanding that we
would be discussing the utterly absurd request of the harbor
Commission. During our protracted interaction with the Harbor
Commission we were absolutely assured, both verbally and in
writing, that the current protocol regarding "transferability" of
moorings will not be changed - an issue that has a $30,000,000 to
$50,000,000 impact on the pocket books of current mooring
occupants.
The proposed changes to the Harbor Commission proposal by City
staff, were distributed on Friday of the Independence Day week and
put on the Agenda for the following Tuesday - no discussions, no
debate, no public input, no time to digest the ambiguous proposal or
offer improvements. Based on the questions that were asked by
many of the Council members, even you appeared to be uncertain of
what the new proposal entailed. However, one thing was clear. The
written commitment by the Harbor Commission about mooring
"transferability" was being reneged on, and a new commitment was
being made by the City Council about "grand fathering" current
mooring occupants against the increased rents. However, this
commitment is not and cannot be binding on any future City
Councils and hence it is of little value.
One can surmise, from the above shenanigans that what is being
engineered here is a scheme to expropriate $30,000,000 to
$50,000,000 from current mooring occupants and convert it into
City income. Protestations by the City Council that the current
system is unfair to new -comers and was never approved by the City
Council has some superficial validity. However the Council and the
Harbor Commission cannot deny that this was known to them and
was administered by them for decades, without question. This
acquiescence resulted in prospective mooring users forking out tens
of thousands of dollars to acquire a mooring.This is not Cuba of
Venezuela. This is the heart of Conservative Orange County. You do
not take away something from an individual without due
compensation, even under eminent domain.
There are ways to fix this issue equitably for all parties, if the City
Council finds the humility to ask for ideas and does not cater to
vested interests.
Respectfully
Jamshed Dastur
949-887-1938
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Vote July 9 Moorings
Date: July 10, 2024 10:20:02 AM
From: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:19:58 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: Vote July 9 Moorings
From: tomiovenitti@gmail.com <tomiovenitti@gmail.com>
Sent: July 10, 2024 9:43 AM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Vote July 9 Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Mayor, City Council,
Good morning, I have regained my faith in good government by your
actions and attempt to find reasonable remedies to the harbor issues
regarding mooring fees and transferability. Although there is language still
pending that is critical to the comments of last nights vote I am impressed
with the concerns and ideas around such issues. There are 2 items for
consideration: 1) Live Aboard need guarantees to not be subject to future
amendments securing their position within the license, since a license
could cause them to lose their rights to stay. It needs to be somewhat
written including them as permit in residency. 2) That some consideration
be given to transferring to family members. My kids grew up here, my
grandchildren have memories here and will continue to live in this area. To
eliminate that ability to transfer to them would be a major loss in
community. Transfer to 2 generations seems fair.
I can only recant my last email in disappointment and say I have major
respect for the comments and understand the difficulty in this decision.
Doing the right thing is hard. Doing the wrong thing affects many for
generations. The decisions although not perfect took a lot to come to this
agreement which we will watch closely to insure its written correctly and
with clarity. Even though we are coming close to a resolution, be aware
that how that license is written will be scrutinized by every letter in the
alphabet. Thank you........
Sincerely,
Tom Iovenitti
1425 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
From: City Clerk"s Office
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Review of Ordinance 2024-15
Date: July 12, 2024 9:22:15 AM
From: Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 9:22:10 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: Review of Ordinance 2024-15
From: Admin <mail@ newportmooringassociation.org>
Sent: July 11, 2024 7:43 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: RE: Review of Ordinance 2024-15
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Esteemed City Council Members,
Thank you for the insightful questions and for recognizing some of the issues
during discussion/ consideration of Agenda Item 13, at the July 9, 2024
regular City Council Meeting.
(Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and 2024-47. Harbor
Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for
Rental Rates
for Moorings)
As you know, there is an intense level of interest in these matters. Please
Let us know when The Newport Mooring Association can
meet with City Staff and elected Officials to work towards overcoming
these issues? We would also appreciate allowing NMA to review and
comment on the final draft of the ordinance, given that the public only had
one business day to review what was being voted on at the July 9th City
Council meeting.
Respectfully,
NMA
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
July 13, 2024
Sent via e-mail to:
jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov;
eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; rgrant@newportbeachca.gov
nblom@newportbeachca.gov; Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov
woneill@newportbeachca.gov; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
Re: "AGENDA ITEM 13. Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and
2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative
Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings".
Dear Mayor and Council,
In matters as contentious as these, I have often found that no one comes out
fully satisfied. Having subsequently communicated about Mayor and Council's
actions of July 9, 2024, with quite a number of stakeholders, as well as others
though, I urge that you identify what mechanism(s) the City will use to assure/
guarantee, that the "grandfathered" rates will actually result, for the time periods
promised? As I understand it, established precedent provides that Permit Terms
and Leases for use of sovereign land in California, are allowed to run 50 years.
After consultations with many, I believe that applying that standard here, will
allow most, to finally reach some level of satisfaction. I feel that it would be the
most efficient and acceptable result, for the bulk of those to be impacted. It may
also go a long way, towards reducing future conflict, and restoring a higher level
of faith in Government. Please, please, please, let's work together on this.
do sincerely thank each of you, for your thoughtful deliberation on these
matters. However, I also truly feel, that members of the public should have
been more timely provided agenda materials for such substantive, proposed
changes in the Harbor.
,edam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com