HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for MooringsCITY OF
0
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
July 9, 2024
Agenda Item No. 13
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager/Community Development
Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator - 949-644-
3236, lwooding@newportbeachca.gov
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor
Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations
for Rental Rates for Moorings
ABSTRACT:
The City of Newport Beach manages the tidelands in Newport Harbor, which includes
parts of the harbor used for docking boats (called mooring fields) located beyond the
pierhead lines, and areas on the shore for onshore moorings. For exclusive use of the
harbor to moor a vessel, the City Council sets fair market value rent for these moorings.
In 2024, after multiple meetings and extensive public input and discussion, the Harbor
Commission recommended that the City Council increase the mooring permit rental rates
to current fair market value. Due to concerns raised by mooring permit holders regarding
the increase in rates, City staff reviewed the Harbor Commission's recommendations. As
a result, staff is providing alternative recommendations for the Council to consider. For
the City Council's consideration and discussion are the Harbor Commission's
recommendations and the staff's alternative recommendations regarding the rental rates
and transferability of moorings.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly
or indirectly-,
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-46, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Setting Fair Market Value of Rent for Moorings Located
Upon Tidelands in Newport Harbor; OR
c) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance
No. 2024-15, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Amending Sections 17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, and 17.60.045 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Mooring Permits and Licenses, and
pass to second reading on July 23, 2024; and
d) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-47, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach, California, Setting the Fair Market Value of Rent for Moorings
Located Upon Tidelands in Newport Harbor.
13-1
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Beacon Bav Bill
Pursuant to State of California statutes, the City holds in trust and administers certain
tidelands and submerged lands (collectively, tidelands) in Newport Harbor on behalf of
the people of the State, with oversight by the California State Lands Commission (SLC).
The City manages the public tidelands property under the guidance of the Beacon Bay
Bill (Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978, as amended).
The tidelands are "Sovereign Lands" and were granted to the City primarily for the
promotion and accommodation of commerce, fishing, recreational boating, and
navigation. And, the Beacon Bay Bill generally limits use of the public lands to:
1. The establishment of a public harbor;
2. Public bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and recreational
facilities open to the general public; and
3. For preservation of the lands in their natural state.
Outside of the public uses listed above, under certain conditions, the tidelands can be
granted for private uses consistent with those specified in the trust. The conditions for
private use include governing the use under a lease or permit agreement, limiting such
agreement to no more than 50 years, and improving the tidelands at no expense to the
State.
Additionally, when tidelands are reserved for exclusive use by third parties and not
available for general public use, the City is required to obtain rent in exchange for that
exclusive use. The Beacon Bay Bill provides that "flIn 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. "
The City may charge different rates for different uses when it is supported by an appraisal
that makes distinctions in value (i.e., an on -shore mooring versus an offshore mooring).
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 (e.g., a
resident versus non-resident rate for the same mooring), would be a discrimination in
rates and is prohibited by SLC.
Further, Section 6 of Article XVI of the State Constitution prohibits making a gift of public
funds or gift of the State's public lands. The City acts as trustee and fiduciary of State
tidelands in Newport Harbor pursuant to the Beacon Bay Bill. It is staff's understanding
from discussions with SLC staff that charging less than fair market value to any individual
or other entity privately using the public tidelands would be a gift of public funds or gift of
public lands and is prohibited.
13-2
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 3
Beyond the City's obligations as trustee of the public tidelands in Newport Harbor, the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Sections 17.60.020(E) and 17.60.060(D) require
that rental rates for the various tidelands uses throughout Newport Harbor are set based
upon fair market value, as determined by an authorized appraiser and the City Council.
City Council Policy F-7-Income and Other Property also requires the City to receive fair
market rent for private third party use of public lands. While there are exceptions that
allow the City to receive less than fair market rent when the land is providing a community
service or uses available to the public, private use of moorings does not qualify as a public
benefit.
Moorings
Pursuant to NBMC Section 17.60.040, a permit is required for use of a mooring in Newport
Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands. There are approximately 478 onshore
moorings (including approximately 44 permits issued to and managed by the Lido Isle
Community Association) under the City's jurisdiction in Newport Harbor, which are in
various locations around Balboa Island, Newport Island, Lido Isle, and along the bay side
of the Balboa Peninsula. Vessels are limited to no more than 18 feet in length for onshore
moorings.
There are approximately 731 offshore moorings (including approximately 79 permits
issued to and managed by Balboa Yacht Club, and approximately 73 permits issued to
and managed by Newport Harbor Yacht Club) under the City's jurisdiction in Newport
Harbor, which are in various locations designated as "mooring fields" throughout the
harbor. Vessels must not exceed the set length for the offshore mooring length.
A map of the on- and offshore mooring fields around Newport Harbor is included as
Attachment A.
LVA re M9 mil :012M. 1 Z R. M_ Im M-ROT,
Following a 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury report titled "Newport Harbor
Moorings: Are They Held in the Public Trust or for Private Profit?" which recommended
establishing a regularly scheduled independent appraisal for the fair market value of
mooring permit fees, the City Council conducted an extensive review of the mooring rates,
discussing issues such as open -market transfers, transfer fees, and sub -rentals.
On November 23, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2010-132 (2010
Resolution) (Attachment E) to increase mooring rental rates to fair market value over a
five-year period. Fair market value was determined to be 14% of the slip rates as
established by the Newport Harbor Marina Index, an average of the slip rates at the
low- to moderately priced marinas in Newport Harbor. This index was also used to set the
slip rates for the City -owned Balboa Yacht Basin marina pursuant to City Council
Resolution No. 2010-134. After the phase -in period, the rate for a 40-foot mooring was
set at $36.45 per linear foot per month, compared to the rate of $1.67 per linear foot per
month in effect when the 2010 Resolution was approved. This was the first change to
mooring rates since 1996.
13-3
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 4
In January 2015, the City Council directed the Harbor Commission to study the mooring
rents and other related mooring issues and then return with recommendations. The
Harbor Commission held four meetings to solicit input from the public, including mooring
users and other interested parties. The Harbor Commission provided a mooring report
with its recommendations to the City Council.
At a special meeting on June 16, 2015, the City Council considered a Harbor Commission
mooring report and recommendations made by the SLC. The SLC noted that mooring
permits do not convey a real property interest; and recommended the City obtain a real
property appraisal. The City Council directed staff to conduct a fair market appraisal and
return with a resolution setting the fair market value rent for both onshore and offshore
moorings.
On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-17 (2016 Resolution)
(Attachment F) based on an appraisal report by Netzer & Associates. The 2016
Resolution set rates at $2.91 per linear foot per month for offshore moorings and half of
that rate ($1.46 per linear foot per month) for onshore moorings. The 2016 Resolution
called for the rate to be adjusted annually by the lesser of 2% or the change in the
consumer price index (CPI). Additionally, the 2016 Resolution allowed for the City to
conduct a new appraisal of mooring rental rates in Newport Harbor after March 1, 2018,
and every fifth year thereafter.
For reference, the current 2024 rental rate for onshore moorings is $1.67 per linear foot
per month, and for offshore moorings is $3.35 per linear foot per month.
Harbor Commission Consideration
Pursuant to the 2016 Resolution and under the direction of the Harbor Commission
subcommittee responsible for Harbor Commission Current Objectives Item 2.2, the City
issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 21-53 on April 8, 2021, seeking proposals from
qualified appraisers to determine the fair market rent for moorings in Newport Harbor.
Four proposals were received, and Netzer & Associates was contracted to perform the
appraisal work. Netzer & Associates provided a report on onshore moorings, dated
December 21, 2021, which was submitted for the Harbor Commission's review and
consideration at three separate public meetings in early 2022 (Attachment G).
In late 2023, the appraiser was directed to evaluate the offshore moorings and provided
a report dated December 26, 2023 (2023 Appraisal). The offshore mooring report was
presented to the Harbor Commission at five separate public meetings between January
and April 2024 (Attachment G).
On January 10, 2024, the Harbor Commission reviewed the results of the 2023 Appraisal.
Public comments were received, but no further action was taken by the Harbor
Commission. On February 1, 2024, the Harbor Commission held a special meeting
seeking additional public input on the 2023 Appraisal report. Extensive public comments
were received, but no further action was taken by the Harbor Commission.
13-4
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 5
On February 14, 2024, the Harbor Commission held a regular meeting and discussed the
2023 Appraisal report. Further public comments were taken, including comments related
to discrimination. No further action was taken by the Harbor Commission. On March 18,
2024 the Harbor Commission held a special meeting and took further comments.
At its meeting on April 10, 2024, the Harbor Commission made the following
recommendation to the City Council on the fair market value rental rates for moorings,
which are reflected in Resolution No. 2024-46 (Attachment 13):
• Establish the fair market rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings as equal
to 24% of the City adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index.
• After the January 2025 adjustment, all future mooring rental rate adjustments will
coincide with annual City slip rate adjustments effective at the start of each new
City fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025.
• The total mooring rate adjustments will be phased in beginning January 1, 2025,
through a final adjustment on July 1, 2029, as per the schedule set forth in the
presentation material provided during the April 10, 2024, Harbor Commission
meeting (included in Attachment G).
• The 24% phased -in rate adjustment amounts per linear foot per mooring size, will
be adjusted each year based on future annual adjustments per the City -adopted
Newport Harbor Marina Index. These subsequent adjustments will be applied to
the initial recommended rate adjustment and equally distributed and phased in
over the same period of time.
• At the end of the phase -in period (July 1, 2029), the mooring rental rates for
onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor will be equal to 24% of the then
average slip rates as determined by the City -adopted Newport Harbor Marina
Index.
Table 1
Mooring Rental Rate Comparison
Source
Rate/LF/Month
Rent/Month
BYB Slip Rate — 40-foot
$52.32
$2,092.80
(July 1, 2024)
Current 40-foot Mooring Permit Rental Rates
$3.35
$134.00
(Reso No. 2016-17)
Offshore Mooring Appraisal — 40-foot
$16.00
$640.00
(Netzer, December 26, 2023)
City Mooring License Program — 40-foot
$15.00
$600.00
(March 1, 2024)
Harbor Commission Recommendation
$12.56
$502.40
(April 10, 2024) (24% of 2024 BYB Rate)
City Council 2010 Resolution
$7.32
$292.80
(Reso No. 2010-132) (14% of 2024 BYB Rate)
13-5
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 6
Table 1 compares the various rental rates, the appraisal conclusions, and the Harbor
Commission's recommendation assuming full phase -in, and the slip rates at the Balboa
Yacht Basin, for a 40-foot mooring permit:
The 2023 Appraisal did not take the newly created City Mooring License Program (City
License) into account because the City License was implemented after the report was
issued; however, the Harbor Commission did consider the City License rates (also
included in Table 1 above) in its recommendation and felt it was an accurate reflection of
the local market for moorings. The City License is different than the mooring permits in
that the City owns and maintains the mooring tackle and the mooring is not transferrable.
Staff's Alternative Recommendations
Following the Harbor Commission's recommendations to the City Council, several
mooring permit holders contacted the City, alleging conflicts of interest and discrimination
in rental rates between different users of the tidelands.
Community Development Department staff reviewed the Harbor Commission's
recommendations and the rates established for residential piers under Resolution
No. 2015-10 and developed alternative recommendations for the City Council to consider.
The general considerations behind the alternative recommendations are:
Grandfather existing mooring permittees at current rates, with no changes to rates
except for CPI adjustments-,
0 Phase out all private transfers of moorings-, and
Ensure future moorings are owned, managed and maintained through the City
license program, referenced as the short-term mooring license regulations
pursuant to Section 17.60.045 of the NBMC.
With these in mind, staff makes the following alternative recommendations:
a) Permit Rates — Grandfather Existing Rates
Existing mooring permittees will continue to be subject to the mooring rates
established in Resolution No. 2016-17. This allows the current permit holders to
continue to pay the same rates, with CPI adjustments or 2% maximum, until the
permit is transferred (subject to the transfer conditions below) or the permit is
relinquished.
b) Mooring Permit Transfers
Existing mooring permittees may privately transfer their permit to a new permit
holder one time within four years, but no later than August 21, 2028 (Ordinance
No. 2024-15, Attachment C). After August 21, 2028, or after the one-time private
transfer (whichever occurs first), no further transfers are allowed.
13-6
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 7
If a death of a permittee occurs, the executor or administrator may hold the mooring
permit for only one year. During that one-year period, the executor or administrator
must secure a City -licensed mooring or find a new location for the vessel.
c) Transferred Permits
Mooring permittees who obtained their permit through a private transfer during the
initial four years after adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-15 will continue to pay the
existing rates for four additional years from the date of transfer. After four years,
the mooring permits will be converted to a City license and will be subject to the
short-term mooring license rates established by Resolution No. 2023-62
(Attachment H). There is no City fee for converting the permit to a license. This
alternative rate structure is outlined in Resolution No. 2024-47 (Attachment D).
The mooring rates approved under Resolution No. 2023-62, adjusts annually on
July 1, are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Length (LIF)
Mooring Type
License Fe (Monthly)
Rate/LF
Rent/Month
18
Onshore
$9.00
$162.00
30
Offshore
$13.00
$390.00
40
Offshore
$15.00
$600.00
50
Offshore
$17.50
$875.00
60
Offshore
$20.00
$1,200.00
95
Offshore
$22.00
$2,090.00
d) Maintenance of Mooring and Tackle
Existing mooring permittees or those who acquire permits through a private
transfer during the four years after adoption of the resolution, and are subject to
the existing mooring rates, are responsible for providing and maintaining the
mooring and tackle pursuant to NBMC Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(b).
The City shall be responsible for the cost of providing and maintaining the mooring
equipment and tackle for mooring users under the City's short-term mooring
license program, and those whose permit has converted to a City license.
13-7
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 8
e) Future Mooring Holders
New mooring users under the City License are subject to short-term mooring rates
established by Resolution No. 2023-62. The license for use of the mooring will be
governed by the City's short-term mooring licenses regulations NBMC Section
17.60.045.
f) Yacht Clubs
The Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and the Lido Isle
Community Association (LICA) are subject to the onshore mooring rates
established in Resolution No. 2016-17 until August 31, 2032. Thereafter, the
mooring permit will convert to a mooring license and subject to the short-term
mooring rates established in Resolution No. 2023-62.
The above recommendations are reflected in the draft Ordinance No. 2024-15
(Attachment C) and license fee structure recommendations are drafted in Resolution
No. 2024-47, (Attachment D). A redline strike out version of the ordinance is provided as
Attachment K.
State Lands Commission (SLC) and California Coastal Commission
The City's consideration of an increase to the rental rate for moorings in Newport Harbor
has been brought to the attention of both the SLC and the California Coastal Commission
(Coastal). City staff has been in contact with both agencies to discuss the matter and has
provided copies of the materials provided to the Harbor Commission. After review of the
appraisal reports and additional information submitted by the appraiser, SLC submitted a
letter to the City, dated April 9, 2024, included as Attachment 1. SLC concluded the City
can reasonably rely on the fair market rates provided in the 2023 Report.
Public Input
The City has received significant public input regarding the proposed changes to the
mooring rates. Correspondence received on the matter was provided to the Harbor
Commission for its consideration, and many community members voiced their opinions
during public comments at the eight public meetings held by the Harbor Commission in
2022 and 2024.
Additionally, the Harbor Commission subcommittee tasked with reviewing the mooring
rental rates met with representatives from the Newport Mooring Association (NMA). The
NMA made a presentation during public comments at the Harbor Commission meetings.
Correspondence from the public that has been directed to City Council, and which was
received by June 26, 2024, at 5 p.m. is included as Attachment J.
13-8
Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission
Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
July 9, 2024
Page 9
FISCAL IMPACT:
Revenues collected for mooring permits and licenses, including any increases in revenue
pursuant to a change in the mooring rental rates, will be posted to the Tidelands Fund
and Tidelands Capital Fund accounts in the Harbor Department, 10045451-551035,
10045451-551040, 10103-551035, and 10103-551040. The revenues collected pursuant
to the currently approved 2016 Resolution are included in the budget for fiscal year 2024-
2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon
tidelands 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 Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair
market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical
Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the mooring rent
contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed
use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings
located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation
Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council
will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds
the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project
under CEQA Regulation Section 15061 (b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Map of Onshore and Offshore Moorings
Attachment B — Resolution 2024-46: Harbor Commission Recommendation
Attachment C — Ordinance No. 2024-15: Alternative Recommendations
Attachment D — Resolution 2024-47-. Alternative Fees
Attachment E — Resolution No. 2010-132
Attachment F —
Resolution No. 2016-17
Attachment G
— Harbor Commission Agendas, Staff Reports with Attachments (links)
Attachment H —
Resolution No. 2023-62
Attachment I — Letter from State Lands Commission, dated April 9, 2024
Attachment J — Comments Received from the Public
Attachment K — Ordinance No. 2024-15 (redline)
13-9
'00e 1�
13-10
Attachment A
Map of Onshore and Offshore Moorings
13-11
210
iA V, C
E
,NNERY
VILLAGE
K, 00* in a
LIDO ' ' '"o K16—nd
11W P4NNINSULA
W AW
NOW
A
arbo
j Islan
H
COLLINS -------
ISLAND
Ne-port Pier NHYC Bay KV
, 05
Island I BALBOA
zz 'TPrDjjj L" �
�4 JISTA AU'1CA
MAN.
Aft
r- ---- ------ -------
BYC \1
--A --------- -
----------- P,
— —.a —, —A -&w2L.
Balboa Pier wim�
DWAR ILI
P I
City of Newport Beach
Moorings and Harbormaster CORONA
------ DEL MAR WAF
Mooring Areas 2 Fuel Dock Marina Park/Harbormaster Lookout Point
Public Dock 11 Public Slips 1600 W. Balboa Blvd.
Pumpout Station Coast Guard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Big Corona Beach
9A9-270-8159
Marina Park/Harbormaster Harbor Patrol
harbormaster@newportbeachca.gov t
Boat Ramp Anchorage newportharbor.org
Ferry Crossing
13-12
Attachment B
Resolution No. 2024-46: Harbor Commission Recommendations
13-13
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RENT FOR MOORINGS
LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor-,
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to
construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands-,
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that
provide options to use and enjoy the tidelands in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within
Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of Newport
Harbor-,
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying
property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the
waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6,
NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(0) and City Council Policy Section F-7(D) require the City
to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands-,
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market
value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser-,
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent
to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value-,
WHEREAS, an appraisal report dated December 26, 2023, was prepared by
Netzer & Associates and delivered to the City establishing the fair market value of
moorings at 30% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index-,
WHEREAS, the Newport Harbor Marina Index was established pursuant to City
Council Resolution No. 2010-134, approved on December 6, 2010, and is the average of
slip rates in the Newport Harbor's low or moderately priced marinas-,
13-14
Resolution No. 2024-46
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission held a meeting on April 10, 2024, and
considered the appraisal recommendations and unanimously recommended to the City
Council adjusting mooring rents to reflect the current fair market value rental rates for
onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on July 9, 2024,
to receive and consider the City Harbor Commission's recommendation regarding fair
market value rental rates for moorings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the
record in connection with this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: Resolution No. 2016-17 is hereby repealed.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in this
resolution provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rates (and
adjustments) constitute fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which
findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on
the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other
testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and
determines the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall
be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent established in this
resolution shall only be applicable to permittees with a mooring located over City
managed tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands in
Newport Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:
a) Establishing the fair market rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings as
equal to 24% of the City adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index used for
determining slip rental rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin.
b) After the January 2025 adjustment, all future mooring rental rate adjustments
will coincide with annual city slip rate adjustments effective at the start of each
new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025.
c) The total mooring rate adjustments will be phased in beginning January 1,
2025, through a final adjustment on July 1, 2029, as per the table:
13-15
Resolution No. 2024-46
Page 3 of 4
Price Per Linear Foot Per Month ($)
Mooring
Lengths/Ft
Jan 1, 2025
July 1, 2025
July 1, 2026
July 1, 2027
July 1, 2028
July 1, 2029
18
2.27
2.88
4.08
5.29
6.50
7.71
25
3.74
4.19
5.08
5.98
6.87
7.77
30
3.91
4.53
5.78
7.02
8.26
9.50
35
3.98
4.68
6.06
7.45
8.84
10.22
40
4.16
5.04
6.78
8.53
10.28
12.02
45
4.19
5.09
6.90
8.70
10.50
12.30
50
4.42
5.54
7.79
10.04
12.29
14.54
60
4.66
6.02
8.76
11.49
14.22
16.96
70
4.74
6.19
9.09
11.98
14.88
17.78
d) The 24% phased -in rate adjustment amounts per linear foot per mooring size,
will be adjusted each year based on future annual adjustments per the city
adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index. These subsequent adjustments will be
applied to the initial recommended rate adjustment and equally distributed and
phased in over the same period.
Section 3: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
Section 4: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for
moorings located upon tidelands 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 Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands
is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section
15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities,
with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair
market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is statutorily exempt pursuant to
CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by
the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands
is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment.
13-16
Resolution No. 2024-46
Page 4 of 4
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2024.
Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
-7A(1,- �� -
AaronA(f.—Harp
City Ajorney
13-17
Attachment C
Ordinance No. 2024-15: Alternative Recommendations
13-18
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, AND
17.60.045 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO MOORING PERMITS AND LICENSES
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach ("Charter")
vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and
regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and
limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to
exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures
granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City has adopted rules and regulations for Newport Harbor,
which are contained in Title 17 (Harbor Code) ("Title 17") of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC");
WHEREAS, members of the public may moor their vessels in Newport Harbor
by obtaining a mooring license, mooring permit, or mooring sub -permit under Sections
17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) and 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the
NBMC;
WHEREAS, additional revisions to Sections 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) and
17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the NBMC are desired to update the
process for authorizing the mooring of vessels in Newport Harbor, in furtherance of
complying with the Beacon Bay Bill; and
WHEREAS, the City shall file a copy of this ordinance with the California
Department of Boating and Waterways prior to its adoption and at least thirty (30) days
prior to its effective date, as required by California Harbor and Navigations Code
Section 660(a).
13-19
Ordinance No. 2024-15
Page 2 of 3
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby approves the amendments to Sections
17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, and 17.60.045 of the NBMC, as set forth in Exhibit
"A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 4: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this
ordinance 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 Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council
finds regulations of mooring permits and licenses located upon tidelands is entitled to a
Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because
the mooring permits and licenses contemplates the continued use of existing facilities,
with no expansion of the proposed use. Lastly, the City Council finds regulations of
mooring permits and licenses for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under
CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 5: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections,
subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code
shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
13-20
Ordinance No. 2024-15
Page 3 of 3
Section 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance shall be effective thirty
(30) calendar days after its adoption.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held on the 9th day of July, 2024, and adopted on the 23rd day of July,
2024, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
LEILANI 1. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
AARJ C. HARP�OTY ATTORNEY
Attachment(s): Exhibit A — Amendments to Chapter 17.60 of the NBMC
13-21
Exhibit "A"
1. The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.60 (Harbor Permits and Licenses) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 17.60
HARBOR PERMITS AND LEASES
Sections:
17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.
17.60.015 Application for Harbormaster Permits.
17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits and Licenses or the Lease
of Public Trust Lands.
17.60.030 Pier Permits for Noncommercial Piers.
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.
17.60.050 Houseboats.
17.60.060 Public Trust Lands.
U. Section 17.60.010(A) (Public Trust Lands —General) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.
A. Applicability. Public trust lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of
navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are
presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the public trust at any time. The
City manages these lands through a series of permits, licenses, franchises and leases.
This chapter applies to permits or leases for public trust lands used for commercial
purposes by a person, other than the City, pier permits for noncommercial piers, and
mooring permits or licenses.
Ill. The title and content of Section 17.60.020 (Application for Pier/Mooring
Permits or the Lease of Public Trust Lands) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits, Licenses or the Lease of Public
Trust Lands.
13-22
A. Required Forms. Except for permits to be filed with the Harbormaster, applications
for permits, licenses, or leases which pertain to Newport Harbor under the provisions of
this chapter shall be filed in the Public Works Department, in writing, on forms
prescribed by the Public Works Director.
B. Required Materials. Applications shall be accompanied by all plans, maps, and
other materials required by the prescribed forms, unless specifically waived by the
Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may request additional materials
deemed necessary to support the application.
C. Required Signatures. Applications for permits, licenses, or leases issued by the
Public Works Director may be made by the owner, lessee, or agent of the owner of the
property affected. The application shall be signed by the owner of record or may be
signed by the lessee or by an authorized agent if written authorization from the owner of
record is filed concurrently with the application.
D. Fees. Applications and renewals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by
resolution of the City Council.
E. Tidelands Users. Users of public tidelands, including commercial and
noncommercial users, shall be subject to rental or lease charges reflective of the fair
market value related to such use as established by the City Council with the assistance
of an appraisal, (Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 §§ 54, 55, 2018;
Ord. 2013-1 § 8, 2013; Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008)
IV. Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
A. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct, maintain, use or tie to a
mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands (i.e.,
an offshore mooring) or in the nearshore perimeter of Newport Harbor perpendicular to
the shoreline (i.e., an onshore mooring) without first having obtained a mooring permit
from the Harbormaster or having otherwise complied with this section. A mooring permit
or license pursuant to Section 17.60.045 is in the nature of license for the temporary
use of a specific location within Newport Harbor. As of August 22, 2024, the City will no
longer issue new mooring permits, other than sub -permits, but shall instead process
and approve mooring license applications pursuant to Section 17.60.045.
B. Issuance of Permit —Conditions. The Harbormaster, in furtherance of the tideland
grants to the City, may issue a mooring permit or mooring sub -permit to allow the
mooring permittee or mooring sub-permittee to temporarily use a portion of the waters
of Newport Harbor for the mooring of a vessel if the Harbormaster makes the findings
set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1). A mooring permittee may hold up to two mooring
permits at any time. A mooring permittee that held or continues to hold more than two
13-23
mooring permits prior to May 11, 2017, may continue to hold the mooring permits until
the permits are sold, revoked, or otherwise transferred under this chapter.
Exceptions.
a. The Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively, "yacht
clubs") currently hold permits for single point moorings placed within certain mooring
area boundaries established by the City, as noted in subsection (13)(3)(g) of this section.
In addition, the Lido Isle Community Association ("LICA") has permits for onshore
moorings on Lido Isle. These organizations shall hold their respective permits under the
yacht club, or respective organization name, for the moorings identified by the City as
under their respective control at the time of enactment of the ordinance codified in this
section. The yacht clubs and LICA shall be solely responsible for managing moorings
under their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under their control to yacht
club members and members of LICA, respectively. The yacht clubs and LICA shall keep
accurate records of the name and address of the club members and community
association members to which each mooring has been assigned and the corresponding
length of each vessel. The yacht clubs and LICA may not sell or otherwise transfer the
moorings under their control to a third party that is not a member of the yacht club or
LICA. Mooring records and 24/7 emergency contact information shall be provided
annually to the Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1 st.
b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (114) feet in overall
length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the
assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the
assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into
the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel
restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen
(114) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the
assigned live -aboard vessel.
c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a
multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor.
An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a
multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who
shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application
shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable
standards and those set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1).
2. Permit Requirements. Prior to August 22, 2024, the City issued a mooring permit to
a maximum of two (2) persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and
collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. The mooring
permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length, and assigned
vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully comply with the
following conditions:
13-24
a. Identify on the permit the full legal name(s), current address(es), current telephone
number(s) and current email address(es), if one exists, of the mooring permittee(s);
b. Agree to be responsible for permit rent, fees, maintenance and repair of mooring
equipment;
c. The permit for joint ownership moorings shall provide that all parties shall have
equal rights under the permit and shall be held jointly responsible for compliance with all
rules, regulations, and conditions set forth in the mooring permit;
d. Grant permission to the City to temporarily assign the mooring to another vessel
when it is unoccupied through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit;
e. Agree to defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with
jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the
mooring permit except where the claim or loss arises from the sub-permittee's damage
of the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the
mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under subsections (G) and/or (H) of this section;
f. Provide proof of insurance for the assigned vessel naming the City as an additional
insured to the satisfaction of the Risk Manager;
g. Provide registration or other proof of controlling possessory right in the assigned
vessel, all to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster;
h. Agree to pay fair market value rent, as established by resolution of the City Council,
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;
i. Agree that the mooring permit does not provide any ownership interest in the
underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and owned by the people of the
State of California;
j. Agree to move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster because the vessel has
drifted from its assigned mooring location or to address safety or navigational concerns,
and also to authorize the City or its designee to move the vessel upon the mooring
permittee's failure to do so, at the permittee's expense;
k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or designee, to board the permittee's vessel at
any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s)
and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard
in accordance with applicable laws; and
1. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established
length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the permittee is subject to relocation
13-25
within the same mooring field for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension
requests. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of
relocations. The costs of relocation, including the moving of mooring equipment, shall
be borne by the mooring permittee who requested the mooring length extension.
Example: Permittee A has a mooring length of thirty-five (35) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty
(30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee B has a mooring length of thirty
(30) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee C
has a mooring length of thirty-six (36) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a
forty (40) foot row. Only Permittee B is subject to relocation.
3. Perm ittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural
persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or
transferred once no later than August 21, 2028, to, only the following:
a. A natural person(s) including, but not limited to, an immediate family member,
which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree
of consanguinity;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will or administering a
probated estate that holds a mooring permit, but only for one (1) year following the
death of the permittee;
c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a
mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring
permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. A marine contractor, or marine support service provider, holding a mooring permit
used to provide current or ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services
(such as maintenance or dredging);
e. Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth education in boating and
marine activities; Kerckhoff Marine Laboratories for the purpose of marine and
oceanographic research; and American Legion Post 291 for the purpose of serving
veterans and their families and supplying them with affordable access to boating and
harbor activities; or similar marine educational entities; or
f. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and
the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City
within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These
designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas
in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled
to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are
located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current
number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 201 1.C. Plans and
13-26
Specifications Required. No mooring permit shall be issued for placing, erecting,
constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or buoy is
constructed:
1 . In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by the
Harbormaster and at a location approved by the Harbormaster; or
2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring or buoy which
have been submitted by the applicant, showing the construction of such proposed
mooring or buoy together with the location thereof, and which meet the requirements
established in this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbormaster.
D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by
the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05.120.
E. Transfer of Permit. Mooring permits are nontransferable, with the exception of
mooring permits that were issued prior to August 22, 2024, which existing mooring
permittees as of August 22, 2024, may transfer once, provided the transfer is completed
no later than August 21, 2028.
F. Procedures for Transfers. Permits shall not be transferred without the prior written
approval of the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster may approve the transfer of a mooring
permit subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) under the procedures set out
below:1. The mooring permittee(s) (or, if the permittee is deceased or incapacitated,
the transferee) shall submit to the Harbormaster:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by the Harbormaster);
and
b. Documentation that the proposed new mooring permittee (transferee) qualifies as a
mooring permittee under subsection (13)(3) of this section.
2. If transferee intends to purchase an assigned vessel but does not have title on the
assigned vessel owned by the mooring permittee and transferor at the time of transfer,
then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to the Harbormaster a
copy of a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or, in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership)
documenting transferee's ownership of the assigned vessel or, in the case of an
onshore mooring, a photograph of the assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel
registration laws. The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance
with Section 17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or
13-27
b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbormaster within the sixty (60) day
period, then the vessel or the mooring may be impounded, and the mooring may be
deemed vacant and assigned pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section.
3. If transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the assigned vessel and does not
have title to the vessel that will be moored at the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of an approved transfer, the transferee shall notify the
Harbormaster that the assigned vessel has been removed from the mooring and before
a new vessel may be placed on the mooring shall submit to the Harbormaster a copy of
a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current registration (or, in
lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the new assigned vessel, or in the case of an onshore mooring, a
photograph of the new assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel registration laws.
The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance with Section
17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or
b. If the documentation is not received within sixty (60) days of a transfer, the mooring
may be deemed vacant by the Harbormaster and the mooring may be assigned
pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section. The mooring may remain vacant
until such time the permittee notifies the Harbormaster of their intent to assign their
vessel to the mooring.
4. The transfer request shall be denied unless mooring permit rent, including late
payment fees, is paid current; required mooring inspections are current; registration or
documentation and insurance are provided; required maintenance and repairs are
complete and there are no derelict or unauthorized vessel(s) on the mooring; and the
vessel is of appropriate length with the appropriate weights and chains.
5. The mooring permittee and transferee shall provide a written agreement to defend
and indemnify the City of Newport Beach in any dispute with a third party over
transferee's right to be the mooring permittee or in any dispute with a third party over
the mooring permittee's right to transfer the permit.
6. The transferee shall provide written confirmation agreeing that no later four (4)
years from the transfer date, the mooring permit will convert to a mooring license and
comply with the requirements set forth in Section 17.60.045 and pay the rental rates
established by resolution of the City Council for mooring licenses.
7. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with all provisions of this
subsection, the Harbormaster must find all of the following conditions to approve the
transfer of a mooring permit:
a. The mooring permittee no longer owns the assigned vessel or has retained
ownership of the assigned vessel and has permanently vacated the mooring;
13-28
b. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions for issuance of a permit
in subsection (B) of this section;
c. The transferor or transferee has reported to the Harbormaster the price paid for the
mooring permit, and has paid to the City the required transfer fee; and
d. The transferor represents that the person did not discriminate against any
transferee or prospective transferee because of race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual
orientation, age or any other impermissible basis under law.
8. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two
mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee
imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.
9. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit,
subject to the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee
imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.
10. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of the
mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third party's
website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit
transfers.
11. Except as provided in subsections (F)(8) and (F)(9), four (4) years from the transfer
date but no later than September 1, 2032, the Harbormaster will convert all mooring
permits transferred between August 22, 2024, and August 21, 2028, to a mooring
license subject to the provisions of Section 17.60.045.
G. City's Authority to Assign Moorings through Use of Sub -Permits. With the
exception of the Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and the Lido Isle
Community Association's designated moorings, mooring permittee may not rent, assign,
or transfer the use of the mooring to any other person. With the exception of moorings
issued to mooring permittees described in subsection (B)(3)(g) of this section, the
Harbormaster shall have the authority to assign vacant moorings to sub-permittees,
pursuant to the following provisions:
1. Deemed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign deemed vacant
moorings through the issuance of sub -permits at his or her own discretion. Sub -permits
may be renewed upon availability. The mooring permittee may reclaim its mooring upon
three days' prior written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to return the assigned
vessel to the mooring. A "deemed vacant mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon
which:
a. An assigned vessel has not been attached for thirty (30) consecutive days or more;
or
13-29
b. A vessel, other than an assigned vessel or approved sub-permittee vessel
approved in accordance with subsection (H) of this section, has been attached for thirty
(30) days or more; or
c. Required documentation for an assigned vessel has not been provided for a
transfer request pursuant to subsection (F) of this section.
2. Noticed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign noticed vacant moorings
through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit for any period of time, up to the
reoccupation date on the mooring permittee's written notice, or the twenty-four (24) hour
written notice per subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section. If the mooring continues to be
vacant for thirty (30) days past the reoccupation date indicated on mooring permittee's
notice, and there is no further written notice from mooring permittee, the mooring shall
become a deemed vacant mooring.
a. Mooring permittee may provide written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to
vacate its mooring for fifteen (15) days or more. These moorings shall be "noticed
vacant moorings." Written notice shall include the date the mooring permittee intends to
vacate his/her mooring, and the date he/she intends to reoccupy the mooring with the
assigned vessel.
b. If a mooring permittee provides written notice, the mooring permittee may reclaim
the assigned mooring on the reoccupation date indicated in his/her written notice or, if
the mooring permittee returns prior to or after the reoccupation date, upon twenty-four
(24) hours'written notice to the Harbormaster.
H. Procedures for Mooring Sub -Permit Issuance. Issuance of a mooring sub -permit
shall be subject to the following conditions:
1 . Provision of a written representation of the mooring sub-permittee's vessel length
which shall be satisfactory to the Harbormaster;
2. The mooring sub-permittee agrees to be responsible for any damage to mooring
equipment; to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach and the mooring
permittee against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to, the mooring rental; to
provide proof of insurance as may be determined by the City's Risk Manager; to provide
registration or other proof of ownership; to provide an equipment damage deposit, all to
the satisfaction of the Harbormaster; and authorize the City to move the vessel on the
mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director
and/or Harbormaster;
3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid by the mooring
sub-permittee. If the mooring is damaged by a vessel assigned by the City, or the City's
agent, the City shall arrange for the repair of the mooring with a qualified vendor and
provide notice to the permittee of the occurrence and the arranged repair date. Should
the sub-permittee fail to pay for the damage for any reason, the City will pay for the
13-30
required repairs to the mooring, and then seek reimbursement from the sub-permittee.
Also, the City shall make available a mooring without charge for the returning vessel of
the mooring permittee until such time as their permitted mooring is repaired;
4. The mooring sub-permittee shall provide approved mooring lines which shall be
removed at the end of the rental period;
5. A mooring sub -permit may be up to fifteen (15) days and may terminate at any time
for any reason, and may be renewed based on availability. Upon return of the assigned
vessel to the mooring, the Harbormaster will attempt to reassign the sub-permittee to
another mooring. Mooring sub-permittees have no right of renewal or substitute
moorings upon return of the assigned vessel, or upon termination of a mooring sub -
permit for any reason. Mooring sub-permittees accept an indefinite term at their own
risk. The decision by the Harbormaster to terminate a sub -permit shall be final and
nonappealable;
6. The mooring sub -permit rent will be based on a rate established by resolution of the
City Council; and
7. Mooring sub -permits are offered to the public on a first -come, first -served basis.
City owned and operated moorings may be reserved in advance.
I . Mooring Permit Transfer Nonrefundable Fee. The City shall charge the mooring
permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under and subject to the limitations
set forth in subsection (E) of this section in an amount equal to seventy-five (75) percent
of the annual mooring rent as established by City Council resolution. This transfer fee
represents a one-time nonrefundable transfer fee for the use of a mooring. A mooring
permit transfer fee shall not be required if:
1 . The transfer is from the mooring permittee to the same mooring permittee as trustor
of an inter vivos trust, living trust or other similar estate planning tool; or
2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)(8) and (9) of this section.
J. Surrendered Mooring Equipment. If the mooring permittee sells, transfers, or
otherwise no longer owns the assigned vessel and does not intend to apply for, or does
not receive, approval to transfer the permit to another, the permittee may provide written
notice to the Harbormaster of his or her intent to surrender the mooring permit;
otherwise the provisions of subsection (G) of this section regarding a vacant mooring
shall apply.
Once a mooring permit is surrendered, the mooring permittee shall remove the
assigned vessel and/or the mooring equipment thirty (30) days after written notice of
surrender of the permit, or, upon failure to remove the mooring equipment, title shall
vest in the City and the City shall compensate the mooring permittee the fair value for
13-31
the mooring equipment, less rent or fees owed, as provided in subsection (L) of this
section.
K. Revocation of Permit.
1 . The grounds and procedure for revocation of a mooring permit are set forth in
Section 17.70.020.
2. Upon revocation of the mooring permit, it shall be the duty of the mooring permittee
to immediately remove the mooring equipment and any moored vessel. If not removed
within thirty (30) days of revocation of the permit, the mooring equipment shall vest in
the City and may be auctioned by the City to another person or may be removed by the
Harbormaster and the cost of mooring equipment removal shall be paid by the mooring
permittee. Any moored vessel or equipment not removed within thirty (30) days may be
impounded by the City and disposed of in the manner provided by law. City -incurred
costs of removal of mooring equipment or any vessel moored thereto may be charged
against the permittee and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered
by the City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or mooring equipment.
3. During any revocation proceeding, if the mooring is unoccupied, it may be
temporarily assigned as a mooring for guest vessels by the Harbormaster.
L. Moorings Reverting Back to City. Moorings authorized by a mooring permit shall
revert back to the City one (1) year after the death of all natural persons named as
11 mooring permitee(s)" as of August 21, 2024. In the event a mooring reverts back to the
City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, death, failure to provide
documents pursuant to subsection (F) of this section, or for any other reason other than
as set forth in subsection (K) of this section, the following shall apply:
1. The mooring permittee shall be entitled to recover all of the mooring permittee's
mooring equipment within thirty (30) days of reversion;
2. If the mooring permittee does not recover his or her mooring equipment, the
mooring permittee shall be entitled to payment from the City of the fair value of the
mooring equipment as depreciated by use in an amount to be determined by the
Harbormaster and as set in the City's master fee resolution, after any and all past due
rent and fees, if applicable, have been satisfied; and
3. The mooring equipment may be publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's
designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City
purposes.
M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.
1 . General. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted
maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that
13-32
requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the
established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed
the established length of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a
larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring
row lengths.
2. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written
request for extension of mooring length with the Harbor Department on a form
prescribed by the Harbormaster, together with the filing fee required by the City's fee
schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
b. Application Requirements. An application for extension of mooring length shall
include the following information in addition to such other information as may be
required by the Harbormaster:
i. The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which the extension of
mooring length is sought, certifying that the applicant and the assigned vessel have
complied with (or in the event the vessel identification is unknown, applicant will certify
that such unidentified vessel prior to occupying the mooring space will comply with) all
of the applicable United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification
requirements, and certifying that the applicant has read and is otherwise familiar with all
of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City, including, but not limited
to, the provisions of this title;
ii. Such plans and specifications as may be required by the Harbormaster for such
mooring to accommodate the proposed longer vessel; and
iii. Detailed information regarding the vessel including make, model, year, LOA, beam,
dimension, vessel ID, and if the vessel identification is not known at the time of making
an application, the LOA and adjusted LOA (including bowsprits, swim steps, or stern -
mounted dinghies) of the proposed vessel for which the applicant seeks approval. The
LOA as published by the manufacturer of a particular vessel shall be used to determine
the required mooring size of a particular vessel, and the size of the specification for the
chains, weights, and tackle necessary to secure a vessel on a particular mooring for a
permittee. Adjusted LOA shall be used to determine the maximum vessel length that
can fit in any particular slip, side -tie, or mooring row.
3. Action on Extension Request. For extension requests that require relocation to a
larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same
mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of
relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a
permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established
length of its mooring row by five feet or more. The Harbormaster may approve the
13-33
extension request only after making the findings set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1)
and making the following findings:
a. There have been no changes in the conditions or circumstances of the existing
offshore mooring permit so that there would have been grounds for denial of the original
offshore mooring permit or grounds for revocation thereof at the time an application for
extension of mooring length is filed;
b. The proposed extension of mooring length will not:
i. Impede or obstruct the fairways or channels or prevent or obstruct the passage of
other vessels between the rows;
ii. Impede, obstruct or prevent other mooring permittees from safely navigating in and
out of adjacent moorings or moorings in other rows connected by the same fairway to
the row of the permittee's vessel;
iii. Result in vessel(s) encroaching into the fairway or extending beyond the outer
boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the established length of the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be
moored;
c. The applicant and the assigned vessel have complied with all of the appropriate
United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification requirements for the
assigned vessel and all of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City,
including, but not limited to, the provisions of this title.
Example of relocation to an available mooring. Permittee A wishes to upgrade their
vessel "Atlantis" (forty (40) foot LOA), which is in a forty (40) foot row, with "Atlantis 11"
(forty-two (42) foot LOA). A will need to relocate to a mooring in a longer row since the
mooring length cannot be extended at its current location. Permittee B's vessel
"Barnacle" (forty-one (41) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee C's vessel
"Calypso" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee D's vessel
"Doldrums" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. B has a permitted
mooring length of forty-one (41) feet; C's permitted mooring length is forty (40) feet; and
D's permitted mooring length is forty-one (41). All four moorings are in the same
mooring field. C's mooring is the only available mooring to which A can relocate.
4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster approves a request for extension of
mooring length, such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following
requirements:
a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with their vessel within
twelve (12) months following the date of approval;
13-34
b. Transferable mooring permits shall not be sold or transferred for a period of twelve
(12) months following the date of occupancy of the approved mooring. The sale or
transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and
(F) of this section; and
c. The requestor shall cover all costs associated with modifying the length of their
mooring, or in the case of a relocation moving their vessel to the available mooring and
moving the displaced vessel from the available mooring. The costs shall include, but not
be limited to, the moving of mooring anchors and tackle and resizing of mooring tackle
to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size).
5. Noncompliance with subsection (M)(4)(a) or (b) of this section shall result in
rescission of the approval to extend mooring length. Within thirty (30) days of the
rescission, the permittee who requested the extension shall at its sole expense return
the mooring to its prior maximum length or in the case of a relocation return their vessel
and the displaced vessel to their prior assigned mooring locations or other mooring
locations as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster. Violation of subsection (M)(4)(b',
of this section shall be grounds for revocation of the mooring permit. (Ord. 2023-22
§ 767, 2023; Ord. 2023-8 §§ 6-11, 2023; Ord. 2022-9 §§ 7, 8, 2022; Ord. 2022-4 § 2,
2022; Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 § 58, 2018: Ord. 2017-7 § 3,
2017: Ord. 2013-11 § 175, 2013; Ord. 2010-26 § 5, 2010: Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008)
V. Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.
A. General. As of August 22, 2024, all new moorings approved by the City will be issued
as a mooring license pursuant to this section.
1. If a short-term mooring license is issued pursuant to this section, a person shall have
the right to use or tie to an offshore mooring or onshore mooring in the waters of
Newport Harbor. A mooring license shall be nontransferable and shall not provide any
ownership interest in the underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and
owned by the people of the State.
2. The provisions and regulations in this title pertaining to "permittees" and "permits"
generally shall also be applicable to licensees and mooring licenses except when this
section expressly provides otherwise, or such application would conflict with this
section.
B. Term. Mooring licenses shall be valid for one month and may be renewed, provided
the licensee has paid in full the license fee, any late fees and is not in violation of any
provision of the license or this title.
13-35
C. License Fee —Late Fee. A licensee shall pay a license fee equivalent to the monthly
fair market value rent of the mooring, as established by resolution of the City Council.
Failure to pay the license fee by the due date shall be grounds for termination of the
license by the Harbormaster. If the Harbormaster, in the Harbormaster's sole discretion,
elects to not terminate a license for failure to pay by the due date, licensee shall pay a
late fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. Failure of a licensee
to pay the license fee and late fee within ten (10) days of the date due shall result in
immediate termination of the license and the termination shall not be appealable to the
Harbor Commission.
D. Eligibility Criteria.
1. Mooring licenses may be held only by natural persons. No more than two (2) persons
may be listed on a mooring license.
2. A person may hold up to two (2) mooring licenses, but they cannot be for the same
type of mooring (e.g., both onshore or both offshore).
3. Onshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for onshore mooring licenses and
offshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for offshore mooring licenses except this
provision shall not apply to a mooring permit that converted to a mooring license
pursuant to Section 17.60.040(F)(1 1). Mooring permittees holding more than one (1)
mooring permit shall not be eligible for any mooring license.
4. The person or persons listed on the mooring license must have at least a fifty (50)
percent ownership interest in the vessel assigned to the mooring. The minimum
ownership interest requirement may be satisfied by the combined interests of the two
persons. For vessels that are not held in an individual capacity, such as in trust or by a
limited liability company, evidence of the required minimum ownership interest shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster.
E. Application for Mooring License. Application for a mooring license shall be filed with
the Harbormaster, on forms approved by the Harbormaster, and shall include the
following in addition to such other information the Harbormaster may require:
1. Applicant(s)' full legal name, current address, current telephone number and current
email address;
2. Vessel registration or other proof of ownership required by the Harbormaster; and
3. Insurance, which types and amounts shall be determined by the Risk Manager.
F. Issuance of Mooring License, The Harbormaster may issue mooring licenses subject
to the conditions set forth in this subsection.
13-36
1. Each person listed on a mooring license shall be individually and collectively
responsible for all activities pursuant to the mooring license and compliance with all
applicable rules, regulations, and conditions.
2. A licensee may not allow vessels other than the assigned vessel and tender to use
the mooring.
3. A licensee shall ensure mooring spreader lines remain visible on the surface at all
times by the use of floats or other devices or methods and shall keep the lines clean of
algae and other marine growth. Except for spreader lines, the City shall be responsible
for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of mooring system components, including,
but not limited to, chains, shackles, anchors, weights, lines, and buoys.
4. Live-aboards shall be prohibited except that this provision shall not apply to mooring
permittees that also held a live -aboard permit as of September 1, 2028, whose mooring
permit converted to a mooring license.
5. The City may temporarily assign a mooring that is vacant or unoccupied to another
vessel through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit in accordance with Section
17.60.040(H).
6. A licensee shall move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster. Upon the licensee's
failure to do so, the City or a contractor retained by the City may move the assigned
vessel at the licensee's expense.
7. A licensee shall be subject to relocation or reassignment to another mooring pursuant
to Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(1).
8. The Harbormaster may board the assigned vessel at any time to inspect the condition
and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine
whether said devices are discharging overboard.
9. A licensee shall defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with
jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the
mooring license except where the claim or loss arises from a sub-permittee's damage of
the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the
mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under Section 17.60.040(H).
10. A licensee shall notify the City within five (5) days of any change in the information
that was provided in their mooring license application including, but not limited to, a
change in ownership interest in the assigned vessel.
G. Extended Vessel Absence. Vacancy or absence from the mooring by the assigned
vessel for at least twenty-five (25) consecutive days shall be deemed abandonment of
the mooring and shall result in automatic termination of the mooring license.
13-37
Termination of license based on abandonment shall not be appealable to the Harbor
Commission. The following situations shall not constitute a mooring being deemed
abandoned:
1. The absence or vacancy from the mooring, which shall not exceed six months, with
the prior written approval of the Harbormaster.
2. The licensee is in the process of changing the assigned vessel, provided that (a)
written notice of the intent to remove and replace the assigned vessel is given to the
Harbormaster prior to removal of the vessel, (b) all required information and
documentation for the new vessel, including proof of ownership or registration, is
submitted to the Harbormaster within ninety (90) days of the date of the written notice,
and (c) the vessel is made available for inspection by the Harbormaster for compliance
with Section 17.25.020(H).
H. Mooring of a Tender and Request to Extend Mooring Length.
1. A single tender, which serves as access to and from shore to the assigned vessel,
may be secured to the assigned vessel or to the offshore mooring in the absence of the
assigned vessel. The tender must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into
the fairway or obstruct other vessels.
2. A licensee may request a mooring length extension in accordance with Section
17.60.040(M).
1. Termination.
1. The Harbormaster may terminate a mooring license for the licensee's failure to
correct any violation of this section or any applicable provision of this title within the
timeframe set forth in a notice of violation issued by the Harbormaster.
2. Upon a determination that grounds for termination of a mooring license exist, the
Harbormaster shall serve written notice of the termination in accordance with Section
1.05.030 to the licensee stating the grounds for the action, the effective date of the
decision, and the right of the licensee to appeal the decision to the Harbor Commission.
The licensee shall have fourteen (14) days from the date on which notice is deemed
served to request a hearing or else the decision of the Harbormaster shall be final.
Termination of a license for failure to pay any fees or based on the abandonment of a
mooring shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission.
3. Upon termination of the mooring license, the licensee shall immediately remove their
vessel(s) from the mooring. The City may impound any vessel not removed within ten
(10) days of the termination date and thereafter dispose of it in the manner provided by
law. City -incurred costs for removal of the vessel may be charged against the licensee
and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the City from the
proceeds of sale of the vessel.
13-38
4. If a timely appeal is filed, the process for revocation of mooring permits set forth in
Section 17.70.020 shall be followed. (Ord. 2023-17 § 2, 2023)
13-39
Attachment D
Resolution No. 2024-47: Alternative Fees
13-40
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RENT FOR MOORINGS
LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to
construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that
provide options to use and enjoy the tidelands in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within
Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of Newport
Harbor;
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying
property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the
waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6,
NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(0) and City Council Policy F-7 Section (D) require the City
to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market
value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser;
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent
to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value;
WHEREAS, an appraisal report dated December 26, 2023, was prepared by
Netzer & Associates and delivered to the City establishing the fair market value of
moorings at 30% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index;
WHEREAS, the Newport Harbor Marina Index was established pursuant to City
Council Resolution No. 2010-134, approved on December 6, 2010, and is the average of
slip rates in the Newport Harbor's low or moderately priced marinas;
13-41
Resolution No. 2024-47
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, short-term mooring license fees for moorings held pursuant to
Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) were established pursuant to City
Council Resolution No. 2023-62 approved on November 15, 2023;
WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission held a meeting on April 10, 2024, and
considered the appraisal recommendations and unanimously recommended to the City
Council adjusting the mooring rents to reflect the current fair market value rental rates for
onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on July 9, 2024,
related to moorings rents to consider the recommendations of the Harbor Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the
record in connection with this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in this
resolution provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rates (and
adjustments) constitute fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which
findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on
the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other
testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and
determines the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit and/or
license, shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent
established in this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees and/or licensees with
a mooring located over City managed tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings
located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:
a) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall continue to apply
to an existing mooring permittee issued a mooring permit pursuant to Section
17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the NBMC that has not been transferred as of
the effective date of this resolution.
13-42
Resolution No. 2024-47
Page 3 of 4
b) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall apply for four
years from the transfer date to mooring permittees that obtained their permit
through a transfer pursuant to Section 17.60.040(E) of the NBMC between
August 22, 2024 and August 21, 2028. Four years from the transfer date, the
mooring permit will convert to a mooring license pursuant to Sections
17.60.040(B)(3), 17.60.040(E), and 17.60.040(F)(1 1) of the NBMC and the
mooring licensee shall pay the short-term mooring license rent established by
Resolution No. 2023-62.
c) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall apply to the
Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and Lido Isle Community
Association until August 31, 2032. As of September 1, 2032, the
aforementioned yacht clubs shall pay the short-term mooring license rent
established by Resolution No. 2023-62.
Section 2: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
Section 3: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for
moorings located upon tidelands 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 Guidelines, California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands
is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section
15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities,
with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair
market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is statutorily exempt pursuant to
CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by
the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands
is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061 (b)(3) because it has no potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment.
13-43
Resolution No. 2024-47
Page 4 of 4
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect on August 22, 2024, and the City
Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2024.
Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaro C. Harp L)
�. I
City jorney
13-44
Attachment E
Resolution No. 2010-132
13-45
RESOLUTION 2010-132
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
RELATING TO HARBOR CHARGES, SPECIFICALLY
ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE MOORINGS
WHEREAS, the City's tidelands trust, also known as the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of
the Statutes of 1978), dedicates certain tide and submerged lands ("Tidelands") to be held in
trust by the City on behalf of the people of California; and
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill directs that the City manage these lands 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 environments which provide
food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and
climate of the area; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that effective management and conduct of a public harbor
obligates it to charge appropriate and non-discriminatory rates for the use of tidelands, without
conferring a benefit to private individuals for the use of public property in violation of the
California Constitution's prohibition on gifts of public funds; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that there are at least two types of fees or charges in the
Harbor — fees based on the cost of providing a service (such as processing a regional general
permit) and charges based on the fair market value use of a public asset (such as some
commercial pier charges, mooring charges and more); and
WHEREAS, the City believes that various harbor activities should be set at or near fair
market value to avoid granting or conveying Tidelands to any private party; and
WHEREAS, the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Harbor Charges
("Committee") on July 27, 2010 with the intent to have the Committee review harbor charges,
including, but not limited to:
Fees based on the cost of providing a service;
Mooring rates — onshore and offshore;
Balboa Yacht Basin charges — slips, garages, and apartments; and
13-46
Commercial piers not already on leases.
WHEREAS, the Committee believes that onshore and offshore moorings should remain
a more affordable method of bringing boating to the general public (more affordable than
berthing), consistent with the City's General Plan (Harbor and Bay Element, 5.2 — Provide a
variety of berthing and mooring opportunities throughout Newport Harbor, reflecting state and
regional demand for slip size and affordability); and
WHEREAS, the Committee has held public meetings with stakeholder groups and has
made a proposal to the City Council to update fees that are based on the cost of providing a
specific service, and these charges were updated by the full City Council on November 9, 2010;
and
WHEREAS, the Committee has held public meetings with stakeholder groups and has
made a proposal to the City Council to increase mooring rates over a five period duration
(starting with an increase in 2011 and ending in advance of the 2015 billing) to roughly 14% of
an average of low- to moderately -priced berthing rates in Newport Harbor. To arrive at this
number, the Committee reviewed:
• The 2007 Orange County Grand Jury's report entitled, Newport Harbor Moorings:
Are They Held in the Public Trust or for Private Profit? Which recommended, among
other things, that mooring rates be based on a percentage of slip or berthing rates
(Recommendation R-6); and
• Mooring to berthing rates in a number of harbors up and down the California coast,
including San Diego, Mission Bay, Morro Bay, Monterey, and Pillar Point; and
• Rate proposals or concepts offered by other groups, including the Newport Mooring
Association; and
• Testimony offered in the public record at meetings associated with mooring charge
increases.
Now, therefore be it:
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the above recitals are
true and correct and constitute findings that support the action taken herein; and be it also
RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that the fair market
value of offshore moorings within Newport Harbor is 14% of a Newport Harbor Marina Index
Rate and that the fair market value of onshore moorings is half of that resulting dollar amount;
and be it also
RESOLVED that City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby amends the City's
Master Fee Resolution to set the following charges for offshore and onshore moorings:
1 ) Starting with the 2011 billings (sent out in mid -January 2011), a one year permit for an
offshore mooring shall be set at 7.1% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year
permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and
2) 2012 billings shall be set at 8.8% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year
permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount;
3) 2013 billings shall be set at 10.5% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year
permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount;
13-47
4) 2014 billings shall be set at 12.3% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year
permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and
5) 2015 billings shall be set at 14.0% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year
permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and
6) That successive years' rates be set at 14.0% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a
one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount
and both offshore and onshore moorings shall be adjusted annually within the Master Fee
Resolution based on the Newport Harbor Marina Index; and
7) Starting in 2011, in the event that a person is assigned an offshore mooring permit off of the
mooring waiting list or interest list, that mooring permit's rate shall be set at 14.0% of the
Newport Harbor Marina Index rate; if the mooring permit is for an onshore mooring, that
mooring permit's rate shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby directs that
the Newport Harbor Marina Index include the following marinas in 2010 and 2011, but that the
City's Harbor Resources Manager or his or her designee may adjust or substitute the marinas
within the Index in 2012 and beyond via posting the indexed marinas on the City's website,
provided that the substitute marinas are considered low- or moderately -priced marinas in
Newport Harbor:
• Ardell Marina
• Newport Dunes Marina
• Harbor Marina
• Lido Yacht Anchorage
• Port Calypso
• Swales Marina; and
• Bayside Village Marina
....and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that Harbor Resources
staff is directed to monitor the Newport Harbor mooring market to ensure that this Resolution's
fee increases appropriately reflect market conditions. If in the opinion of the Harbor Resources
Manager, the mooring increases within this Resolution are, over time, not reflective of mooring
market conditions, the Manager shall bring this to the attention of the City Manager and City
Council; and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the price adjustments
for moorings set forth in this Resolution for 2013 and successive years shall take place only if
the City Council has completed its open and public review, analysis, and where applicable, price
adjustments of Other Harbor Charges on or before September 30, 2012. The Other Harbor
Charges to be reviewed and analyzed are slips, garages, and apartments at the Balboa Yacht
Basin, commercial piers not already on leases, and residential piers, including rentals of
residential piers.
13-48
ADOPTED this 23' day of November, 2010.
ATTEST:
�6m--
LEILANI BROWN
City Clerk
�'e
KEITH CURRY
Mayor of Newport Beach
L�0 R N I P-'
13-49
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution,
being Resolution No. 2010-132 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by. the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23r" day of
November, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Mayor Curry
Noes: Gardner, Daigle
Absent: None
Abstain: Webb
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 231�6 day of November, 2010. TWUT�
CL
VC4ityler
ty
ewport Beach, California
�Seal)
13-50
ADOPTED this 23' day of November, 2010.
ATTEST:
�6m--
LEILANI BROWN
City Clerk
�'e
KEITH CURRY
Mayor of Newport Beach
L�0 R N I P-'
13-49
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution,
being Resolution No. 2010-132 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by. the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23r" day of
November, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Mayor Curry
Noes: Gardner, Daigle
Absent: None
Abstain: Webb
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 231�6 day of November, 2010. TWUT�
CL
VC4ityler
ty
ewport Beach, California
�Seal)
13-50
Attachment F
Resolution No. 2016-17
13-51
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE RENT
FOR MOORINGS LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT
HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor-,
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to
construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that
provide an affordable option allowing residents of California to use and enjoy the
tidelands in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within
Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of
Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying
property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the
waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, Cafifornia Constitution Article 16, Section 6,
NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(D) and City Council Policy F-7(D) require the City to
receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair
market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser;
WHEREAS, an appraisal report was prepared by Netzer & Associates and
delivered to the City and has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, which
report is made a part of the record for this matter;
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-132, which established fair market value rental rates for onshore and offshore
moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent
to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value,
13-52
Resolution No. 2016-17
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council held a special meeting to receive
and consider a comprehensive study conducted by the City's Harbor Commission
regarding various aspects of mooring permits, including, but not limited to, fair market
value rental rates;
WHEREAS, at the City Council's special meeting, the City Council considered
the feedback and ideas gathered during the Harbor Commission's study and outreach
meetings, and directed staff to bring back the mooring fair market value rental amounts
in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the
record in connection with this resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The Recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
Section 2: Resolution No. 2010-132 is hereby repealed. The City Council finds
that the rent provisions contained in this resolution provide for the charging of fair
market value rent and that the rental rate (and adjustments) constitutes fair market
value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City
Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the
appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other testimony and
documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines
the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall be set in
accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent established in this resolution
shall only be applicable to permittees with a mooring located over City managed
tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport
Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:
Onshore Mooring $17.50* linear foot *Adjusted annually by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers ("CPI"),
Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County Region
or 2%, whichever is less.
The City may conduct a new appraisal of
mooring rental rates in Newport Harbor after
March 1, 2018, and every fifth (5 1h) year
thereafter, as part of the appraisal required by
Resolution No. 2012-96, or any successor
resolution.
Offshore Mooring $35.00* linear foot
13-53
Resolution No. 2016-17
Page 3 of 3
Section 3:' The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for
moorings located upon tidelands 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 Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon
tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation
Section 15301 because the 'mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing
facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the
setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a
Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair
market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating
expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the setting of fair market
value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation
Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 26 1h day of January, 2016.
ATTEST:
464t�
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
Dianb B. Dixon
Mayor
'%��-ORNAP'
13-54
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leflani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2016-17 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly hel�d on the 2 6th day of January, 2016, and that the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Peatter, Council Member Duffield, Council Member Petros,
Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, Mayor Dixon
NAYS: Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 27 1h day of January, 2016,
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)
Z%Lf FO""
13-55
Attachment G
Harbor Commission Agendas, Staff Reports with Attachments
(linked due to file size)
January 12, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2805307&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 114)
February 9, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2806902&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 46)
March 21, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2810682&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 3) -
http://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=c35cOd29-a9O9-4011-9e7a-
2f47f6e77a4b.docx
13-56
January 10. 2024
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2939053&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 184) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=63cf8c86-e79d-401 1 -aed4-
97e2954a379f.docx
February 1. 2024
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2946706&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 3) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=41f3735f-c230-4286-a4cd-
df716591 b33f.docx
February 14. 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2946948&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 50) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e9l 81 a03-6d4l-459b-8150-
1 c028b214316.docx
March 18. 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms. newportbeachca. gov/WE B/DocView. aspx? id =294901 O&d bid =O&repo=CN B
Staff Report (see page 45) —
https:Hnewportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=81 aa8dac-f8a5-4c91 -be30-
b2lOabelfcc3.docx
April 10, 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2952906&dbid=O&repo=CNB
Staff Report (see page 56) —
https:Hnewportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=5a3dO2dd-3ac7-47c1 -acd5-
d23af8411275.docx
13-57
Attachment H
Resolution No. 2023-62
13-58
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE LICENSE FEE FOR SHORT-TERM
MOORINGS LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT
HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to members of the public to
construct, maintain, and use moorings upon those tidelands,
WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2023 meeting, the Harbor Commission considered
alternatives to mooring permits and mooring sub -permits by which members of the public
would be able to use moorings in Newport Harbor and recommended by a vote of 6-0
(with one Commissioner absent) the creation of short-term mooring licenses;
WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the Harbor Commission also reviewed and
considered an appraisal by Netzer & Associates, dated August 2, 2023 ("Netzer
Appraisal"), that analyzed the fair market value of rent for use of onshore and offshore
moorings held by the City ("City moorings") under a short-term mooring license;
WHEREAS, based on the Netzer Appraisal and documents and comments
received at the meeting, the Harbor Commission further recommended: (a) that the short-
term mooring license fee be set in accordance with the Netzer Appraisal, with subsequent
changes to be based on adjustments to the index rate used to determine the rent for
Balboa Yacht Basin slips ("Balboa Yacht Basin index rate"), (b) for the Harbor
Commission to have the ability to re-evaluate subsequent changes in the mooring license
fee and whether to continue the use of the Balboa Yacht Basin index rate if the City
Council were to change the calculation of the Balboa Yacht Basin index rate or decide to
utilize a different methodology to establish rents for the Balboa Yacht Basin, and (c) that
persons who wish to join the waitlist for the short-term mooring licenses be charged an
initial fee and annual fee to cover the cost associated with maintaining the waitlist, which
fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council;
('_,itv of Newpoft Bea( 13-59
Resolution No. 2023-62
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2023-17, which is being introduced concurrently with
this resolution, would add NBMC Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) to
provide a process for the issuance of short-term mooring licenses that would allow the
public to use onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor for a renewable one -
month term;
WHEREAS, like mooring permits, short-term mooring licenses issued by the City
do not convey any underlying property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary
mooring of a vessel upon the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6, NBMC Section
17.60.020(E) and City Council Policy F-7 require the users of public tidelands be subject
to rental or lease charges reflective of the fair market value related to such use, as
determined by the City Council,
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market
value rental or lease charges based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected
appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Netzer Appraisal
as well as all other documents and comments in the record in connection with this
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows..
Section 1: The City Council does hereby find that the rent provisions contained
in this resolution provide for the charging of a fair market short-term mooring license fee
and that the license fee (and adjustments) constitutes fair market value rent for the City
moorings. These findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are
based, in part, on the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in
addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council
further finds and determines the license fee for City moorings used pursuant to a short-
term mooring license shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The
license fee for City moorings shall be set as follows:
('-,it,v of Newpoft Beach 13-60
Resolution No. 2023-62
Page 3 of 4
Length
(LF)
Mooring Type
License Fee (monthly)
$/LF
Total
18
Onshore
$9.00
$162.00
30
Offshore
$13.00
$390.00
40
Offshore
$15.00
$600.00
50
Off hore
$17.50
$875.00
60
Offshore
$20.00
$1,200.00
95
Offshore
$22.00
$2,090.00
Section 2: The short-term mooring license fee shall be adjusted annually on
July 1 by the annual percentage change to the index rate used to determine rental
increases for the Balboa Yacht Basin. The Harbor Commission shall re-evaluate
subsequent changes in the mooring license fee and whether to continue the use of the
Balboa Yacht Basin index rate if the City Council changes the calculation of the index rate
or decide to utilize a different methodology to establish rents for the Balboa Yacht Basin,
which recommendations, if any, shall be sent to the City Council for consideration.
Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
City of Newpoft Beach 13-61
Resolution No. 2023-62
Page 4 of 4
Section 5: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value license fee for
moorings located upon tidelands 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 California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the
City Council finds the setting of fair market value license fee for moorings located upon
tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing
facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the
setting of fair market value license fee for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to
a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a)(1) because the
fair market value license fee established by the City Council will be used to meet operating
expenses within the tidelands.
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 14 th day of November, 2023
ATTEST:
L" 41 - M62��
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
k C, . ff'ot,
A�r& C. Harp
City Attorney
Citv of Newpoft Beach 13-62
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2023-62 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
of said Council held on the 141h day of November, 2023; and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Mayor Noah Blom, Mayor Pro Tern Will O'Neill, Councilmember Brad Avery
Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember
Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Erik Weigand
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 15th day of November, 2023.
S""p
i 1. Brow -
Leilani wn �7'
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
:�- X)U
Nz,4-1 F0 R!!�
City of Newport Beach 13-63
Attachment I
Letter from State Lands Commission, Dated April 9, 2024
13-64
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GAVIN NEWSOM, Govemor
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite I 00-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
April 9, 2024
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Via email to: LWooding4newportbeachca.gov
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TFY CA Re/ay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1800
Subject: State Lands Commission staff review of City of Newport Beach Mooring
Rate Appraisal
Dear Ms. Whitlinger,
Commission staff understands that the City of Newport Beach is reassessing
mooring rates for Newport Bay to ensure they reflect fair market value, and the
City's Harbor Commission contracted for an appraisal to serve as a basis of the rate
update (commonly referred to as the Netzer Appraisal). Harbor Commission
subcommittee members and staff requested that Commission staff provide a
review of the Netzer appraisal.
Commission staff regularly provide informal advice to assist trustees in
meeting their obligations under their granting statutes, and in that spirit agreed to
review the appraisal. Staff acknowledges that Public Trust Lands often have unique
characteristics that make them difficult to compare to other properties. As
described more fully below, staff believes that the City can reasonably rely on the
appraisal for setting mooring rates.
As background, the California legislature granted the state's tidelands and
submerged lands in Newport Bay to the City of Newport Beach. The City has
authority to set rents and rates for this granted land. The Commission oversees the
City of Newport Beach to ensure it is complying with its grant statutes,] its fiduciary
1 Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, and as amended.
13-65
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
April 9, 2024
Page 2
duties to the State,2 and the Public Trust Doctrine.3 As part of its fiduciary duties to
the State, and to avoid making unconstitutional gifts of public property, the City
must charge fair market rates for uses of granted sovereign land. The City, however,
is not required to obtain the State Lands Commission's approval before adopting
new mooring rates and is not required to use the same rent -setting methodologies
as the State Lands Commission. Nor are any of the State's roughly 70 trustees of
granted sovereign land.
Appraisals of submerged lands and tidelands are difficult, and we are aware
that appraisers could reasonably employ different methodologies to arrive at fair
market values. Staff is also mindful that the legislature entrusted management of
Newport Bay, including establishing mooring rates, to the City's discretion -
provided it acts within the contours of its granting statutes and fiduciary duties. Staff
reviewed the appraisal at a high level to determine whether we believed the City
could reasonably rely on its concluded fair market mooring rates.
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 or revision.
First, 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. Staff notes, however, that the rates based on upland residential
values were ultimately not recommended by the appraisal.
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 San
Diego Unified Port District's mooring rates and therefore did not approve the Port's
mooring rate increases.
Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the
moorings and marinas used 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.
Finally, the appraisal would benefit from clearer explanations of how
calculations were performed. For example, the appraisal uses an average marina
2 Public Resources Code §§ 6009, subd. (d); 6009. 1.
3 See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. Morse (1947) 31 Cal.2d 254, 257 [holding that local grantee was
subject to the same burdens as the state, including the Public Trust Doctrine].
13-66
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
April 9, 2024
Page 3
slip rate of $50.55 for Newport Bay and concludes that a 30% marina -to -slip ratio is
appropriate. In both cases the appraisal provides the data the conclusions are
based on but does not provide an explicit calculation or analysis for how each
conclusion was reached from the data.
To be clear, staff is not suggesting that the appraisal be updated to address
our comments, and neither are we mandating that the recommended rates be
adopted by the City. Staff's conclusion, based on the City's request to review the
appraisal, is that the City can reasonably rely on the appraisal's fair market rates.
The City could also adopt different rates if additional information shows that the
recommendations should be modified. Many current mooring permitees contacted
staff and made public comments at Commission meetings, expressing serious
concerns over the large increase in mooring fees recommended by the appraisal.
Staff supports the City phasing in new, fair market mooring rate increases or
otherwise working collaboratively with current mooring permitees to soften the
impact of increased rates. 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 reflect 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. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit these comments.
Sincerely,
REID BOGGIANO
Granted Lands Program Manager
cc: Sheri Pemberton, Chief of External Affairs
Ben Johnson, Staff Attorney
Chaun Wong, Staff Appraiser
13-67
Attachment J
Comments Received from the Public
13-68
From: Michael Lawler <rnl.traveler@yahoo.corn>
Sent: January 22, 2024 5:06 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Lease Rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
To the Hon. Mayor and City Council,
I live on Balboa Island and I'm a permittee for Mooring D-9 (50ft.) for my
47 ft. sailboat I have some serious concerns about the proposed (HUGE!)
increases in the offshore mooring rental rates that are being considered by
the Harbor Commission. Here are a few of my thoughts.
The appraisal by James Netzer of Netzer & Associates is flawed in three
main ways:
1. To determine the value of a mooring, he first uses the values of "Upland
Property," meaning the bayfront homes nearest the moorings. Please see
Page 15 through 27 of the Netzer Appraisal, under the heading of
Tidelands Market Rent Analysis, he writes: "The first step of this
methodology is to determine the 'market value' of the underlying land via
the Sales Comparison Approach .... In the case of the offshore moorings
the "land" is defined as the tidelands that support the mooring(s). This
methodology is based on the premise that the highest and best use of the
submerged land is to be used in conjunction with the upland property.
Since there is no active real estate market for the sale of submerged
tidelands, the Market Value of the State-owned tidelands that are
administered by the City of Newport Beach, is based on analysis of
comparable upland sales ... The offshore moorings and associated permits
are more analogous to a residential pier permit as opposed [to] a
commercial pier permit. Given these considerations only residential land
sales are included in the analysis ... After identifying a number of potential
sales, I selected the sales that had the most similar characteristics to
estimate the benchmark uplands value of the 'typical' bay front lot." He
goes on in his appraisal to come up with a sales price per front foot for
seven bayfront homes as a "benchmark" for determining the fair market
value of a nearby offshore mooring. He then comes up with a complicated
formula for a discount 0.3935 for "lack of joinder," meaning the nearby
mooring is not somehow attached to the bayfront home. He then
extrapolates from these faulty assumptions that the the fair market rent for
an offshore mooring should be $54 per foot per month. This might make
some sense if the mooring permittee was the property owner of the nearby
bayfront home, but that is almost always not the case.
13-69
My comment/opinion: This is absolute nonsense! Comparing the value of
a somewhat tenuous leasehold interest in an offshore mooring to the
value of owning a nearby bayfront home, then giving a 0.3935 discount for
"lack of joinder" because the mooring is not attached to the bayfront
home? That's absurd! The profound unreasonableness of his
methodology, assumptions, and analysis draws into doubt his credibility
for the rest of his appraisal report.
2. His Comparable Rental Analysis is also flawed (Pages 27 through
33.) He "placed most emphasis" on the rates that the Newport Harbor
Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club charge their members for
subleasing the moorings in front of those two clubs. But those members
have (a) parking, restrooms, dining, storage and other facilities for their
members; (b) a yacht club owned and staff -operated and maintained
shore boat for the boat owners to get out to their subleased moorings, (c)
the yacht club pays to have the bi-annual inspections and the
maintenance and repair on the mooring tackle (which usually runs about
$2,000 every two years);(d) the yacht clubs have dinghy docks for their
members' use with much longer or no time limits. Based on his faulty
assumptions, he concludes the current fair market rent for offshore
moorings is $16 to $18 per foot per month, when the current rate is
actually only $3.34. He is suggesting an outrageous increase of about five
times the current rental rate!
3. His Ratio Analysis is also flawed. This is where Mr. Netzer compared
the fair market rent for moorings to slip rentals in Newport Harbor. He
states in his appraisal that renting a slip is an option for mooring
permittees. It is not for most of us. Slip rentals are too highly priced and
many mooring permittees are working class or retirees who cannot afford
slip rental rates, nor will they be able to afford the huge increase (5x) for
their mooring rates that is proposed. He cites, but does not rely on, the
reasonable rates charged by the City of Monterey for similar moorings
where the permittee pays the maintenance and repairs on the mooring (as
we do in Newport Harbor)- $11 O/month, regardless of the length of the
boat (see Page 24 of the Appraisal.) Mr. Netzer gives a ratio of 30%,
meaning if a 40 ft. slip costs $1,500/month, then a 40 ft mooring should be
30% of that amount, or $450/month. I suggest the ratio should be much
less, more like 10%. With a slip, the boat owner has parking, easy access,
electrical power to keep the batteries charged, water to hose the boat
down after use, restrooms and trash cans. A mooring permittee has none
of those amenities, and must purchase from the former permittee (a) the
right to lease the mooring space from the City and (b) the mooring can,
chain and ground tackle (the going rate is about $1,000 per foot), and then
he must pay for the bi-annual inspections, maintenance and repairs to the
mooring can and tackle (about $2,000 every two years.)
13-70
If you want to look at what others are doing, I suggest the City of Monterey
at the monthly rate of $110 (regardless of the size of the boat) or at San
Mateo County's Pillar Point mooring field where the rates are $2.03 per
foot per month ($101.50 for a 50 ft. boat.)
The Beacon Bay Bill is often cited for the City's authority (some say
mandate) to charge fair market rent. Upon a close reading of the Beacon
Bay Bill you will find that it specifically says it applies only to the lots in
Beacon Bay. So I question any "authority" or "mandate" to charge "fair
market rent" if it is based on the Beacon Bay Bill. However the City could
take into consideration the Beacon Bay property leases for ihose homes in
determining what to charge the permittees for the mooring field, and
maybe that is a good idea. The City charges 2.5% of the appraised value
for an annual rent for the land leased to the lessees (homeowners) in
Beacon Bay. For most moorings in Newport Harbor, the going rate to sell
a permit is about $1,000/ft. Multiplied by 2.5% (same percentage rate as
the homes in Beacon Bay), by analogy, that means the City should charge
a 50 ft. mooring permittee $1,250 per year (50 ft. x $1,000/ft x 2.5%). This
comes to $104/month. I currently pay $167/month for my 50 ft.
mooring. This "comp" or benchmark would suggest the City is already
overcharging mooring permittees by 60%.
The best comp for the "fair market rate" in, say, Mooring Field A is what
the permittees are paying in Mooring Field B or any other mooring field
within Newport Harbor. But the rates are set by the City and are the same
for each mooring field throughout the harbor, so this is not very helpful,
other than as an argument to keep the rates unchanged.
The mooring rates were reset by the City Council just a few years ago,
with with a significant increase then and with an automatic Cost Of Living
increase. The rates were studied, much debated, the increases were
made, and each year since then they have been adjusted with the COL
index -- so the Council need not revisit the issue now. Commissioner Ira
Beers says the Harbor Commission has been charged or tasked by the
City Council to study the mooring lease rates and to make
recommendations. But I understand that Mr. Beers went to the Council
and practically begged the council to give him and the other Harbor
Commissioners this assignment, and some of the council members were
rightfully concerned that it was unnecessary, since the issue was resolved
just a few years ago, with the COL increases, so the issue would not have
to examined again for many, many years.
Most of the boat owners cannot afford an such a huge increase, as
suggested by the (flawed) appraisal.
13-71
I understand the Newport Mooring Association is obtaining another
appraisal. On an issue of this importance, it is always wise to get two
appraisals. Perhaps that other one will be more reasonable.
In conclusion, I suggest leaving the rates alone, the way they are
now, with the automatic COL increases adjusted annually. Similar to
the City's policy on providing affordable housing to a relatively small
percentage of the population, the City should pride itself on
providing offshore and onshore moorings at the current rates as an
affordable alternative to the high price of slips in Newport Harbor,
thereby making recreational boating a little more economically
feasible and a reality for the 1,1160 mooring permittees.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael R. Lawler, Jr.
Attorney at Law
901 Dover Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 646-7236 Tel.
(949) 287-9774 Cell
ml.traveler(a)_Vahoo.com
Privileged and Confidential Communication
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (118 USC
§§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named
above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. Internet communications cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain
viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have
arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version.
13-72
From: Drew Lawler <drew@ajlawler.com>
Sent: January 22, 2024 5:17 PM
To: Michael Lawler
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Re: Mooring Lease Rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Wondering if we should hint/quietly let
It be known that if the council goes through with this we will organize a recall election against all council
members who vote in favor of an increase.
Drew Lawler
Land Line: 949-631-7660
Cell: 949-275-1810
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2024, at 5:06 PM, Michael Lawler <ml.traveler@vahoo.com> wrote:
To the Hon. Mayor and City Council,
I live on Balboa Island and I'm a permittee for Mooring D-9
(50ft.) for my 47 ft. sailboat I have some serious concerns
about the proposed (HUGE!) increases in the offshore
mooring rental rates that are being considered by the Harbor
Commission. Here are a few of my thoughts.
The appraisal by James Netzer of Netzer & Associates is
flawed in three main ways-
1. To determine the value of a mooring, he first uses the
values of "Upland Property," meaning the bayfront homes
nearest the moorings. Please see Page 15 through 27 of
the Netzer Appraisal, under the heading of Tidelands Market
Rent Analysis, he writes- "The first step of this methodology
is to determine the 'market value' of the underlying land via
the Sales Comparison Approach .... In the case of the
offshore moorings the "land" is defined as the tidelands that
support the mooring(s). This methodology is based on the
premise that the highest and best use of the submerged land
is to be used in conjunction with the upland property. Since
13-73
there is no active real estate market for the sale of
submerged tidelands, the Market Value of the State-owned
tidelands that are administered by the City of Newport
Beach, is based on analysis of comparable upland
sales ... The offshore moorings and associated permits are
more analogous to a residential pier permit as opposed [to] a
commercial pier permit. Given these considerations only
residential land sales are included in the analysis ... After
identifying a number of potential sales, I selected the sales
that had the most similar characteristics to estimate the
benchmark uplands value of the 'typical' bay front lot." He
goes on in his appraisal to come up with a sales price per
front foot for seven bayfront homes as a "benchmark" for
determining the fair market value of a nearby offshore
mooring. He then comes up with a complicated formula for a
discount 0.3935 for "lack of joinder," meaning the nearby
mooring is not somehow attached to the bayfront home. He
then extrapolates from these faulty assumptions that the the
fair market rent for an offshore mooring should be $54 per
foot per month. This might make some sense if the mooring
permittee was the property owner of the nearby bayfront
home, but that is almost always not the case.
My comment/opinion: This is absolute nonsense! Comparing
the value of a somewhat tenuous leasehold interest in an
offshore mooring to the value of owning a nearby bayfront
home, then giving a 0.3935 discount for "lack of joinder"
because the mooring is not attached to the bayfront home?
That's absurd! The profound unreasonableness of his
methodology, assumptions, and analysis draws into doubt
his credibility for the rest of his appraisal report.
2. His Comparable Rental Analysis is also flawed (Pages 27
through 33.) He "placed most emphasis" on the rates that
the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club
charge their members for subleasing the moorings in front of
those two clubs. But those members have (a) parking,
restrooms, dining, storage and other facilities for their
members-, (b) a yacht club owned and staff -operated and
maintained shore boat for the boat owners to get out to their
subleased moorings, (c) the yacht club pays to have the bi-
annual inspections and the maintenance and repair on the
mooring tackle (which usually runs about $2,000 every two
years);(d) the yacht clubs have dinghy docks for their
members' use with much longer or no time limits. Based on
his faulty assumptions, he concludes the current fair market
rent for offshore moorings is $16 to $18 per foot per month,
13-74
when the current rate is actually only $3.34. He is suggesting
an outrageous increase of about five times the current rental
rate!
3. His Ratio Analysis is also flawed. This is where Mr.
Netzer compared the fair market rent for moorings to slip
rentals in Newport Harbor. He states in his appraisal that
renting a slip is an option for mooring permittees. It is not for
most of us. Slip rentals are too highly priced and many
mooring permittees are working class or retirees who cannot
afford slip rental rates, nor will they be able to afford the
huge increase (5x) for their mooring rates that is proposed.
He cites, but does not rely on, the reasonable rates charged
by the City of Monterey for similar moorings where the
permittee pays the maintenance and repairs on the mooring
(as we do in Newport Harbor): $11 O/month, regardless of the
length of the boat (see Page 24 of the Appraisal.) Mr. Netzer
gives a ratio of 30%, meaning if a 40 ft. slip costs
$1,500/month, then a 40 ft mooring should be 30% of that
amount, or $450/month. I suggest the ratio should be much
less, more like 10%. With a slip, the boat owner has parking,
easy access, electrical power to keep the batteries charged,
water to hose the boat down after use, restrooms and trash
cans. A mooring permittee has none of those amenities, and
must purchase from the former permittee (a) the right to
lease the mooring space from the City and (b) the mooring
can, chain and ground tackle (the going rate is about $1,000
per foot), and then he must pay for the bi-annual inspections,
maintenance and repairs to the mooring can and tackle
(about $2,000 every two years.)
If you want to look at what others are doing, I suggest the
City of Monterey at the monthly rate of $110 (regardless of
the size of the boat) or at San Mateo County's Pillar Point
mooring field where the rates are $2.03 per foot per month
($101.50 for a 50 ft. boat.)
The Beacon Bay Bill is often cited for the City's authority
(some say mandate) to charge fair market rent. Upon a close
reading of the Beacon Bay Bill you will find that it specifically
says it applies only to the lots in Beacon Bay. So I question
any "authority" or "mandate" to charge "fair market rent" if it
is based on the Beacon Bay Bill. However, the City could
take into consideration the Beacon Bay property leases for
those homes in determining what to charge the permittees
for the mooring field, and maybe that is a good idea. The
13-75
City charges 2.5% of the appraised value for an annual rent
for the land leased to the lessees (homeowners) in Beacon
Bay. For most moorings in Newport Harbor, the going rate
to sell a permit is about $1,000/ft. Multiplied by 2.5% (same
percentage rate as the homes in Beacon Bay), by analogy,
that means the City should charge a 50 ft. mooring permittee
$1,250 per year (50 ft. x $1,000/ft x 2.5%). This comes to
$104/month. I currently pay $167/month for my 50 ft.
mooring. This "comp" or benchmark would suggest the City
is already overcharging mooring permittees by 60%.
The best comp for the "fair market rate" in, say, Mooring
Field A is what the permittees are paying in Mooring Field B
or any other mooring field within Newport Harbor. But the
rates are set by the City and are the same for each mooring
field throughout the harbor, so this is not very helpful, other
than as an argument to keep the rates unchanged.
The mooring rates were reset by the City Council just a few
years ago, with with a significant increase then and with an
automatic Cost Of Living increase. The rates were studied,
much debated, the increases were made, and each year
since then they have been adjusted with the COL index -- so
the Council need not revisit the issue now. Commissioner
Ira Beers says the Harbor Commission has been charged or
tasked by the City Council to study the mooring lease rates
and to make recommendations. But I understand that Mr.
Beers went to the Council and practically begged the council
to give him and the other Harbor Commissioners this
assignment, and some of the council members were
rightfully concerned that it was unnecessary, since the issue
was resolved just a few years ago, with the COL increases,
so the issue would not have to examined again for many,
many years.
Most of the boat owners cannot afford an such a huge
increase, as suggested by the (flawed) appraisal.
I understand the Newport Mooring Association is obtaining
another appraisal. On an issue of this importance, it is
always wise to get two appraisals. Perhaps that other one
will be more reasonable.
In conclusion, I suggest leaving the rates alone, the way
they are now, with the automatic COL increases
adjusted annually. Similar to the City's policy on
13-76
providing affordable housing to a relatively small
percentage of the population, the City should pride itself
on providing offshore and onshore moorings at the
current rates as an affordable alternative to the high
price of slips in Newport Harbor, thereby making
recreational boating a little more economically feasible
and a reality for the 1,160 mooring permittees.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael R. Lawler, Jr.
Attorney at Law
901 Dover Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 646-7236 Tel.
(949) 287-9774 Cell
ml.traveler(cD_yahoo.com
Privileged and Confidential Communication
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for
the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify
the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the
information received in error is strictly prohibited. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or enror-
free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any
attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy
version.
13-77
From: Doug Wetton <doug@dwinvestments.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Dept - City Council; sscully@newortbeachca.gov;
woneill@newoprtbeachca.gov
Subject: Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council,
I'm urging you to keep mooring fees reasonable. This is the last reasonably priced
docking option in Newport Beach. This will drive families away from being able to
afford boating in Newport Beach. I bought my mooring less than a year ago because I
couldn't afford the docking space anywhere in the harbor.
This increase seems onerous especially when compared to the private piers with similar
Tideland permits that remain unaffected. Many of us feel that this is unfair targeting
and discrimination of our rights as mooring owners.
I understand the need for a modest increase but the rates as published below are
egregious.
A
0
Boat Ler4o
Private Mooring
ExNfing
Annual PeFMII 'Fee
JApproximale)
35ft
$1,403
40ft
$1,603
45ft
$1,804
50ft
$2,004
60ft
$2,405
70ft
$2,806
Respectfully,
Doug Wetton
n
1)
E
PFiV&te Plierl5lip
Private MOOFiflE
PriVaTOMOOTiFig N&PUM44
Exialing Ratc
proposad
Prop"04 I`Gr referonciff
An nu at Pe FM I L Fee
Annual
Percentage
[Appfoxitnate�
Flmm it lee
Increase
$309
$4,292
206% RP1171M41
$317
$5,770
260'D/o pnx,�Gioi
$311
$6 p 642
268% Rpnaiwi
$450
$85724
335%RP1172-0743t
$534
$12,211
5 0 9 1/o Ar'11403281
$617
$14,935
432% ppi7nimi
This cotum" derived
trom exhibit D on the
H.C. Agen-da V10124
13-78
L -1 g Wetton
Q PROPERTIES
Doug Wetton Properties
PC Box 5647 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662
o 949.759.0220 ex 102 1 f 949.759.0240 1 c 949.500.4760
DRE: 01009432
13-79
From: Jared Perrin <jaredperrin@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
I am upset by the proposed increases to mooring rates in Newport Harbor. The proposed increase is
outrageously high, and unfair to permittees. Please do not allow this to move forward.
Best,
Jared Perrin
13-80
From: kirk shafonsky <kirkshafonsky@hotmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I just received word that the city has proposed a 509% annual increase in the
mooring fees.
My mooring is A84
I can not understand how Newport thinks that is a fair increase. Its one thing to have
a small yearly increase but to hit us up with this increase is totally unfair.
Put yourself in our shoes. How would you feel if your mortgage or car payment went
up 509%
I have also been told that the slip rates are staying the same. I am not trying to try to
push for others to get a crazy increase but i just point out how unfair this proposal is!
The NMA has repeatedly pointed out that mooring holders already pay 5 to 10 times
more than all other tideland users including homeowners with docks and major
corporations who operate marinas. We are currently paying far, far more on a
square foot basis for use of the same tidelands. This new report exaggerates this
discrepancy multiple times over and flies in the face of fairness and blatantly
discriminates against mooring holders.
I politely ask you to reconsider this crazy increase.
Thank you,
Kirk Shafonsky
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
13-81
From: stevek@aol.com
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good morning. I would like to express my opposition to the staggering rate increase
proposal, on the harbor moorings.
Thank you,
Steven D. Kruse
221 E. Bay Front
Newport Beach, CA 92662
13-82
From: Jake Wirthlin <jake4773@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scully, Steve; Dept - City Council; O'Neill, William
Subject: February 1 meeting on mooring fee increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Hello,
I am an out of state mooring owner and have been informed of the potential rate increase for
my mooring and all offshore moorings. I have some serious financial concerns and would like to
voice them. If the information is true about this increase it is going to be putting a very
substantial burden on me and the people that live on their moorings. You see as much as I
would like to be able to live in Newport the numbers do not make sense in my
current situation, but I am very aware of my mooring neighbors financial situation and how that
will impact their lives.
I am not sure how to be a voice of my concerns with the "talk of the town" about what is about
to happen at this meeting. I would like this to be my voice as we are already paying fees equal
to the current appraisal. I am certain there are others out there that would be suspect of
anything currently proposing an appraisal more than what we are all currently paying.
That being said it is pretty clear I oppose any increase in rates as I would like to enjoy my
mooring for a very long time.
Thank you for listening,
Jake Wirthlin
H-75
13-83
From: Eric Mears <ericmmears@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please don't increase the mooring fees. Boating is a large part of our family life, and I would like to keep
it that way.
Thanks,
Eric
13-84
From: James Reno <jbsirvine@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please don't raise the mooring fees so much. Especially the offshore moorings.
Sent from my Whone
13-85
From: PAUL BAILEY <ccs4construction@aol.corn>
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:09 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings vs Piers
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Lets be equal and fair across the board to everyone (excluding Co./Inc.) that hold
permits for public land !
For moorings out in the water, with no amenity's to pay more money then, a prier with a
lot of amenity's is going to make city look prejudice.
When the over all people (non -boaters) here of this the city council is going to look
pretty bad.
Thanks
Paul Bailey
13-86
From: artie@gobalboa.com
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Potential Increase in Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello,
I understand that the City is considering increasing the monthly fees for mooring permit holders here in
our harbor.
From the research that I have done, mooring holders in Newport already pay 5 to 10 times more
than all other tideland users including homeowners with docks and major corporations who
operate marinas.
These moorings are the last affordable bay access for the general public and we would
appreciate your help in keeping things the same. I grew up fishing in and outside of the harbor
and I want to give my three boys the opportunity to do the same. That is why I paid a large dollar
amount for the mooring that we currently occupy.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can work with the current mooring permit
holders to create an amicable resolution.
Artie Dorr
Cell: (949) 500-9832
Office: (949) 673-7368
Fax. (949) 566-9335
artie(@Robalboa.com
www.aobalboa.com
Balboa Realt
813 East Balboa Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
DRE #01899740
D
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The
information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the
intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this
transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail or
phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any.
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also
be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this
13-87
transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any.
13-88
From: charlie Levy <charliel23@pacbell.net>
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: City council meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear sirs, I worked my whole life and paid off my boat. I have a mooring in Newport Harbor because that
was the only place I could afford to keep my boat now that I am retired. If the mooring fees go up as
much as you are planning I will not be able to keep my boat any more. The whole reason the mooring
fields were created was to keep boating affordable to the average Californian. Your fee increase would
make boating only available to the elite! I hope that is not your goal, please keep boating affordable to
us average Americans. Thank you, Charles Levy, Mooring permit holder B-192.
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPad
13-89
From: Winner1436 <winnerl436@aol.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: increase in mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
i am told there is a planned increase in mooring fees to be presented to the council on
Feb 1. The increases that are planned are unbelievable. I have held my mooring since
1980 and have never heard of anything like this. I have seen increases due to inflation
but increasing fees by 300% or higher is wrong. And there is no plan to increase the
current much lower fee for private pier people who own a boat dock - this is not
fare. Please have this considered fairly. Many of us mooring holders will have to get rid
of our moorings with this type of a fee.
thank you
Buzz Lowry
716 w oceanfront
13-90
From: kartbin <kartbin@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 12:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed annual fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
hLsafe.
Hello,
Can you please explain how it makes sense that mooring permitees will be charged so much more than
pier owners?
Please use rational sensibility and do not increase the fees. They are already more than they should be
for a mooring that is maintained by the permittee and nothing is provided by the city.
Thank you,
Linda Miller
13-91
1 -.08 A IN Ii i IR Ail 69% a
sense of unfair targeting and
to the proposed fee increase,
ig their situation to private piers
is that remain unaffected.
351t
$1.403
S30D
$4,292
2064%
40h
$1,603
$327
$5.770
2609�
45fi
$1,804
"11
SGPU2
2"4 011IRLAM3
50ft
$2,(104
U50
$4.724
1115% 4PIT'UW1
60ft
$2,405
$534
$12.212
509% LP13MINI
7Uft
$2.806
$617
$14,BM
432% P-quawn
D-A-
4-1.3;MN
0
13-92
13-93
From: Brian Ouzounian <brian.oci@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: January 23, 2024 1:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooringfees, again?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
My mooring is a 171. It has been in my possession for about 50 years. The staff proposal for moving fee
increases is totally absurd and should be an embarrassment to the City Council and Harbor commission.
The state lands commission, as I have always understood, regulates rates up and down the state, so that
they are not excessive or undervalued. It performs periodic rate surveys. It does not allow for price hikes
because one area may feel special related to land values as opposed to others, which may be lesser land
values. How in the world can you be allowed to be so " arrogant" in this proposal. You definitely
discriminate above and beyond other Harbor's saying that we can justify this because we are special.
That is not allowed to my understanding and the city should be seriously disciplined. At the least
proposing something like this should be an embarrassment. What is happening to our city when
measures like this surface?
State lands commission benchmark study show's legitimate rates. As I have researched this benchmark
study data for many years now, our current rates are excessive and at least my mooring should be 10% of
what is currently being charged, based upon their findings.
Therefore I urge you to shut this down right now, and evaluate how you can reduce the morning rates, at
that time our City will be special.
Best regards,
Brian Ouzounian
Sent from my iPad
13-94
From: KB <babymd02@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please reconsider. Pounding the poor is never the answer. 80% of moored boats belong to the poor who
can't afford a dock. Most of the rich will never moor their boats. Dealings with no electrical, birds, seals,
boarding/unboarding, washing and waxing are a pain in the butt on a mooring. 80% of the moored boats
will leave since the poor can't afford it. So, I believe the harbor will be abandoned and will look like a
ghost harbor. The consequence of fee increase will have detrimental effects especially on the poor.
Thank you Sent from my Whone
13-95
From: nigelb@att.net
Sent: January 23, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring number H-310
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
It is with great disappointment that I find that the city is planning to raise mooring fees an
unprecedented 250% of my current fee. It seems not that long ago mooring holders fought that same
battle and came to an agreement that the current fee schedule was fair and equitable. A cost of living
increase makes more sense but 250% increase for my 45 foot mooring is beyond understanding. If I was
in a residential rental and you raised my rent 250% we would be in court. I know the rental increase is
based on an appraisal by what I understand to be a real estate appraisal group who has no background
in harbor leases. I wonder if it was taken into account that we mooring lessees pay for all our own
tackle and there is no city service to get us to and from our moorings. These issues may have been
considered but we still are dealing with a huge increase for a population that are not well heeled
bayfront owners for whom a significant bump in rent would mean very little. We are, for the most part,
average citizens willing to put up with the inconvenience of a mooring to be able to enjoy a boating
experience. I don't doubt some will need to sell their moorings as their boating experience just became
way more costly.
I don't doubt that the appraisal report is based on the highest possible comparatives and that the
mooring fees are low hanging fruit for those who are trying to find more tax dollars to run the
government. Please lower the percentage of increase, so we don't have to consider leaving our boating
experience behind us, as a fond memory. Nigel Bailey 949-500-3250 nigelb@att.net
13-96
From: Jim Palmer <jimpalmer8088@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 3:26 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council; Harbor
Commission
Subject: Opposition to the proposed offshore mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hon. Mayor O'Neill
Fellow Council Members
Harbor Commission Chair Scully
Fellow Harbor Commissioners
Harbormaster Blank
This letter is to express my opposition to the Harbor Commission's proposed
offshore mooring rate increase because:
1) The proposed rates violate NBMC Section 17.60-040 (113)(2)(h) (Pg
6/18)
A) Mooring Permittee shall pay fair market value rent, as established by
resolution of the City Council, 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.
B) The City's schedule used to collect rents for mooring permits over
tidelands is already about 300% higher than the schedule used for pier
permits over tidelands. The proposal will increase rates to about 1000%
higher or more (Ref: Resolution 2015-10).
2) The Netzer Appraisal 12/23/2023 assumptions and conclusions
are fundamentally flawed
A) Offshore moorings are incorrectly assumed to be 'highest use' valuation
B) Public offshore moorings have numerous strict conditions and limitations
on use including no subletting, conforming vessel requirements, scheduled
maintenance and more
C) Unlike moorings controlled by private yacht clubs within Newport Harbor,
public offshore moorings are equivalent of 'triple net' with permit holder
responsible for all mooring costs and have no shore boat service, parking,
dinghy storage, dock carts or other dedicated onshore amenities, facilities or
services
D) The Appraisal inappropriately relies on unapproved rates proposed by a
3rd party mooring services vendor in San Diego
E) The San Diego mooring services vendor is responsible for all associated
mooring costs with the vendor providing mooring equipment, mooring
13-97
maintenance, administration, shore -side dinghy storage and vehicle parking.
The mooring vendor in turn pays a share of gross rental revenues,
concessions and services markups to the San Diego Port Authority. New
terms of the mooring vendor -Port Authority agreement are underway but
not finalized.
E) Mooring permits issued by the City of Avalon most closely resemble those
issued by Newport Beach, yet those comps are not included in the Appraisal
3) This should be a non -issue and with no changes to the current
annual CPI adjustments
A) Even the Netzer Appraisal states: The [transfer tables] tables are included
to illustrate the market has been relatively efficient and stable throughout
the harbor and among the various mooring fields and mooring lengths. P 13
B) Approximately 100 (13%) of public offshore moorings are vacant at any
given time and available for the City to rent and should be an 2024 Harbor
Commission Objective
Q Mooring fees should continue with annual CPI adjustments at least until
the City learns more about FMV/supply/clemand from the City's a new
program for 16 moorings starting on March 1, 2024
D) Available records show between July 2017 to October 2023, 255 of the
771 public offshore moorings were transferred to non -family members (33%
and an average of avg 36 per year)
Please reject the Harbor Commission's proposed rate increase and instead
continue with the current CPI adjustment schedule.
Sincerely,
Jim Palmer
Mooring Permit D10
901 Dover Dr #101
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-433-6512
jimpalmer8088@qmail.com
13-98
From: Andy SWANSON <sixswansons@aol.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 4:25 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Appraisal of rates for permitted moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello,
This email is regarding the new mooring permit fee appraisal. My name is Andy Swanson and I became a
mooring permittee a little over 2 years ago. Growing up is 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 4 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 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 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 community to enjoy". I feel
that by raising mooring permit fees to the level that they are unafforclable 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 we would have made a different decision. In a State that is becoming more
and more unafforclable, I would ask that you not do the same with the State Tidelands. Thank you!
Best regards,
The Swanson Family
13-99
From: Ruben Smulovitz <rubensmulovitz@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 6:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee's-
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
In regards to mooring rate increase; this topic needs to be discussed, before any
actions implemented. We have paid a premium to enjoy the Hassles associated with
being a Mooring Permitee. We are the real Stewards of the Harbor. We have the best
intentions and interest in preserving the Harbors conditions and beauty. We are
required to maintain the tackle, even if we have no vessel on our mooring, so that the
Harbor Department can rent our mooring to visitors. There is so much here that needs
to be resolved before any actions can be taken. We will see you at the Meeting, and I
hope that you bring your reasoning mind with you.
:011 0=0
RS Builders
Ruben Smulovitz
(714) 308-0844
13-100
From: Jerry kelleher <jerrykelleher3@gmail.com>
Sent: January 23, 2024 6:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please approve a fair increase. The proposed numbers are punitive and unfair. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Gerald Kelleher
Sent from my Whone
13-101
From: kewhite546@gmail.com
Sent: January 24, 2024 5:49 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please be reasonable in raising the mooring fees. I and my family have had the same onshore mooring
since they were installed. I understand that the fees need to be raised but please consider those of us
that won't be able to afford a huge raise in fees. Thank -you , Kathy White S-115.
Sent from my iPhone
13-102
From: Camille Rizko <camriz@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 24, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council
Subject: increase of mooring fee.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Dear sirs or Madams,
We are shocked to hear about the proposed mooring fee increases. We just purchased our mooring
(1-1211) and paying an already high fee compared to other areas.
13-103
From: Graham Proctor <gdproctor@aparian.com>
Sent: January 24, 2024 10:55 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increases
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council Members,
My wife and I purchased a Lease agreement for mooring Al 41 in JuLy Last year and are shocked that
our budgeted cost of mooring in Newport Beach is going to be drasticatty increased.
We invested $48 000 in getting access to Lease from the previous Lease holder and cannot believe
that even more money is planned to be extracted from us within six months of takingoverthis
lease.
We understand that costs may need to be covered but proposed increases seem
excessive. Please honor our original agreement and keep the fees reasonable.
Talking to other boat owners in Newport, it appears that other types of permit holders are not being
targeted for increases, so why are offshore moorings being singled out for increases?
I will be attending the meeting on Feb 'I't and hope that you decide to keep boat ownership in
Newport Beach affordable for Orange County residents and equitable for all boat docking and
mooring agreements.
Regards,
Graham Proctor
(949) 447-0591
13-104
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ludgate <kiwipaulludgate@gmail.com>
25, 2024 7:43 AM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
& . -, L. F, a W, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Discriminating against mooring permittees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please explain to me how this is not discriminating in nature and action ?
8
C
0
:�.-a!!Lt:-
Private Mooring
NiVALD P14EFISUp
PIOV.AC42 MC�011flX
E Ki sting
FxI i6n C Rava
Pira9csed
AnnL1APtFMi1Fvdi
Annua(PelirkillFwo
Amnual
JApprazIrimaiml
JAPP�Oqdvnhlej
Perm-, 0,--
35ft
$1,403
$309
$4,292
40ft
$1,603
$317
$5,770
45ft
$1.604
$311
$6,642
50ft
$2,004
$450
$8,724
60ft
$2,.405
$534
$12,211
70ft
$2.806
$617
$14,935
ThL!s cotunrin deireved
tFomexNbn0ont14@
RC. "a VIW4
A response would be appreciated thank you
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
e
FriY41IL-MOOT'Ing PP"Petm�Vv
Fraposivid foirfetepeme
Fivccentogc
Itirr0"i,
206% Rpamw
260% RmGmsoi
2681/o kpitwui
335% ilpimw)
509% iwpmo3zai
4,32%;tFi74oio!,t
13-105
From: brooke primrose <brooke.primrose@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 25, 2024 12:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello,
My partner and I are a mooring holder and are concerned about the mooring fees annual increase. We
do not believe that there should be an increase as we do not have any easy access to water or
electricity. The price for a private pier annual rate is well below of what a mooring rate is and they have
easy access to water/electricity. We are very displeased with the thought of having the annual fee
increase by 268% for a 45 foot mooring.
Thank you for your time.
13-106
From: June Theriot <jetriot@sbcgloba 1. net>
Sent: January 25, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council
Subject: Vote "NO" on proposed increase of Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council Members, City Manager, and Harbor Commission Members,
I urge you to vote 'NO' on the proposed increase of shore mooring fees.
My grandfather installed our shore mooring in the 1930's - 1940's. He installed the
weight, can, lines, shackles, and post with permission, but no help from the city and
Harbor Department. We have maintained the mooring throughout the years at no cost to
the city or The Harbor Department.
We have seen many changes over years: The fees have increased and regulations
have changed on this property that we own. The city can rent out our mooring line to
any boater and keep the fees that are charged without compensation to us who own the
property.
My grandchildren are the 5th generation to use the shore mooring. They have learned
to boat safely in the harbor by sailing, rowing, and motor. We will be priced out of these
special memories if the fees are increased beyond our means.
Please review the outrageous shore mooring fee increase and REJECT this
proposal.
Respectfully,
June Theriot
Virus-free.www.avq.com
13-107
From: Ted Rieck <tedrieck55@gmail.com>
Sent: January 28, 2024 10:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
There are no facilities or amenities for the mooring holders. There's no parking, there's no bathrooms
there's no rack for you to put a dinghy, so there's no justification for the price increase.
Ted Rieck
13-108
From: Randy Beck <rc@clubbeck.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 8:08 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello all, I appose a rate increase the owners already take care of maintenance . Thank you, Randy
13-109
From: bgriffith sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:17 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Stapleton, Joe; Grant, Robyn; kleiman@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Mooring Fee Discrepancies in Newport Beach
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear Newport City Council,
We trust this message finds you well. It has come the attention that a significant number
of residents in Newport Beach are expressing deep dissatisfaction with the recent
proposed mooring fee increase. We believe it is important for the City Council to be
aware of the concerns raised by the community.
Here are some key points for your consideration:
Disparity in Fees:
Pier Dock Owners currently pay $400 annually.
Mooring Holders, on the other hand, are charged $1603 for a 40ft mooring.
The substantial difference in fees has raised questions within the community.
Maintenance Costs -
Maintaining a mooring costs Mooring Holders over $2000 annually.
It is important to understand the financial burden placed on Mooring Holders for upkeep.
Perceived Discrimination:
Some residents have expressed concerns that the fee structure implies discrimination.
We believe it is essential to address these perceptions to maintain trust and
transparency.
In light of the above, we kindly request the presence of a few City Council members at
an upcoming meeting to discuss these matters in detail. Your participation would
contribute to a constructive dialogue and help address the concerns of Newport Beach
residents.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a positive resolution that
takes into account the perspectives of all stakeholders.
13-110
What You Can Do To Support 1100 Mooring Holders Asset
You can attend CIty Harbor Commisslon or Write to City Council
YOUr note ShiaUld include - Mooring Holders Discrimination -Netzer
questionable & Unrekable Methods of appraisal- Beacon Bay Bill
where Newport City Is to provide affordable boating
13-111
From: SARA FRANKE <covebound2@aol.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:19 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Discriminatory Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello, please vote AGAINST the proposed discriminatory, astronomical increase in
mooring fees. Waterfront homes with docks and/or other water storage areas in front of
their homes for boats, kayaks, etc., are not incurring such a fee increase for their use of
far greater water space, which is solely dedicated to their own private use. You allow
open moorings to be occupied by visiting boats but keep the money you make, rather
than crediting mooring holders who incur all the maintenance costs. Yet waterfront
homeowners are treated differently and far better, by not being subject to this huge fee
increase and not having to share their dock or water space with anyone else,
Until all water space use and fees can be addressed fairly and consistently among all
users of the water space, I urge you to please reject the proposed fee increase that
would be borne only by mooring holders and not waterfront homeowners.
Thank you.
Sara Franke, Mooring D-047
13-112
From: Jay Renkowitz <kibitzwithjay@gmail.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:27 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Raising mooring fees is in appropriate -The moorings are hard to access and a part of the community
which is unique and aesthetically pleasing thus benefits all in the community from artists to tourists who
enjoy the sights of our unique community.Please leave the fees as they currently exist
13-113
From: Ron Berg Dba berg <ron berg@sbcgloba 1. net>
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:56 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring d 11'
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
you should not increase fees more than 2% per year
13-114
From: Chuck Lewis <chucklewislOO@gmail.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 4:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Opposition to Dramatic Mooring Fee Increase
JEXTERINAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear NB City Council,
I'm writing today to express my concerns and disbelief over the proposed dramatic increases to fees for
only off -shore moorings.
While I recognize that increasing mooring fees is a necessary and natural part of maintaining services
(your harbor department is terrific), I am greatly struggling with why one group is being targeted to
carry the burden and why such a huge increase in one year??
I have been a proud mooring leaseholder in Newport Harbor for 14 years now. Having a boat on a
mooring comes with many challenges, which I'm sure you are well aware of: Sea lions, birds, other
boats hitting us, no power, no water, etc, etc. The tradeoff has been reasonable lease rates.
As you consider raising rates, I would expect you to do so fairly across the board for all leaseholders, not
just off -shore moorings, and encourage you to develop a phased -in approach.
Respectfully,
Chuck
Chuck Lewis
360 E. Ist Street. #198
Tustin, CA 92780
714-318-3137 cell
chucklewislOO@gmail.com
13-115
From: Les Barkley <Ies.barkley@gmail.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 4:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed increase in mooring fees
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear Council Members -
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed increase in mooring fees. Frankly, I do not
understand the rationale for a proposed 268% increase in annual fees for my 45' mooring (B-191). In
addition to the existing annual fee of approx. $1900, 1 pay annual "property taxes" of $1700 to the
County, bi-annual mandatory mooring inspection and adjustment fees, boat insurance, maintenance
and operating costs. Raising my annual city fee to $6600 would equate to annual fee (aka tax) of over
5% of the value of my 27' boat. Again, this in addition to the $1700 annual tax I pay to the County.
This is an absurd increase that is not justifiable.
Thank you for your consideration
Les Barkley
(949) 274-3800
13-116
From: C K <catpicl@gmail.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 5:28 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Kingsauctionsinc@gmail.com
Subject: J12
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
6
Good evening,
This is unacceptable. How can this be justified?
I disagree with this increase.
Catherine King
VlooringJ12
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission and any attachments are confidential, may be privileged and
should be read or retained only by the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission
in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your system. Thank
you for your cooperation.
13-117
From: Barbara Lawler <pockets90266@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 29, 2024 8:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Increase of fees at that proportion: ridiculous!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
> Bad management is what this is.... an increase, fine. 500%: ridiculous..
> One appraisal was gotten. All of you, if it were your house, say a remodel, would get three appraisals.
Why not get two more REALISTIC appraisals and compare?
> Regards,
> Barbara Lawler
13-118
From: Phil Domiano <phildrealty@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:03 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Proposed mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
To Whom it May Concern,
Upon receiving the initial notification of such a huge increase in Mooring fees, I was shocked and
appalled. Although there is great wealth within the community of Newport Beach, our current economy
will, undoubtedly force those who are less fortunate to give up their mooring . To Be honest the whole
thing seems quite fishy to me. At a time when California is considering giving illegal aliens, free
healthcare, one cannot help think that issues like this are at the root cause of such a ridiculous increase.
Costs of everything are up across-the-board, and the middle class has been hit hard. I understand There
may be some type of increase request, but the proposed increase is dumbfounding, and unfortunately,
those of us on the outside will never truly know the motive behind it. To me, it seems like some type of
land grab .
I am not currently a resident of California, thank God, but those in charge are destroying your state. As a
realtor in Nevada I hear it on a daily basis from the the influx of Californians flooding our community.
Your delusional governor can continue to bury his head in the sand and gaslight Those of significant
means whose lives are not affected by increases in food, gas, health insurance and pretty much
everything else.
But for the rest of us, this is just another reason to vote out you people who sit on your high horses and
turn your back on the American people. Please reconsider and make it a reasonable increase.
Regards
Phil
Phil Domiano
REALTOR
S.191268
URBAN NEST REALTY
Direct: 702.845.5679
Office: 702.835.2444
9580 W Sahara Suite 200
Las Vegas NV 89117
www.aitgroupiv.com
13-119
From: Tim Lewis <zooterincm@aol.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: MOORINGs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Council member
To the point. It looks like someone or group within the City wants to be in the mooring
business. Great plans about creating new moorings and bragging about the income
from them?
If the increases proposed take place, about 1/3rd of the moorings will go into default. A
few things will happen. The City will become the owner of a lot of derelict boats, at great
expense to remove them. It will not collect rent. The moorings themselves will have to
be serviced by the City. In some cases you could need armed intervention? There are
people that are very passionate about the use of those moorings and you could trigger
an insurrection of sorts. Lawsuits and a paper nightmare will impact the Harbor
operation.
The bottom line is the City doesn't need to own moorings and the current system works
just fine. Proper management includes running it like a business. When you fail to
respect the customers, your business will fail. What you really need here is a good
business manager, to be just that, not a group of commisioners, inline to be on the
Council. Take the power away from the Harbor Commision and run the moorings like a
business.
Tim Lewis
13-120
From: M Thompson <merideethompson@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Hello esteemed city council of Newport Beach!
We grew up in Newport, attended NHHS. We have always agreed since meeting that we
wanted to sail boats to interesting places. Because we could afford to keep a boat on a mooring
in Newport (that we got a permit for in 1977), we have been able to realize this dream.
This is where we raised our kids, they have benefitted from this environment. We are school
teachers. We didn't make much but we made sure we could afford to keep our mooring. 17
boats have passed through our hands, most of them kept here. We bought fixers and worked
diligently, made them reliable and used them hard. More than one two year stint to Mexico
starting in 1979 on three different boats. We are really into boating.
We find it shocking that the purpose of the moorings is not being respected. They are where
people like us can afford to pursue our love of the ocean, on boats. No where else nearby has
any sort of affordable boat space. Isn't it discriminatory to up our rates and not every rate for
boats stored on the bay?
I think a small raise is ok, maybe double what we pay now. But to be fair, you must raise
everyone's costs accordingly. I don't think waterfront home owners will like that. They must be
made to pay equally. There is your needed source of more income to support city projects. If
brought to par there would be enormous income there that we now miss.
So we ask that you respect the history of the purpose of the mooring fields. Do not raise our
fees an astronomical amount that limits access to the public permanently. Do include waterfront
property owners in your assessment of potential income and use it.
Respectfully,
Meridee and Paul Thompson
H-812
13-121
From: Phil Rodas <prodasl23@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: shore mooring RATE INCREASE
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear Council members,
I have a shore mooring and know you are discussing rate increases. Bear in mind that moorings contain
no utilities like water to rinse and flush engines on boats.They also gave no electricity to charge batteries
etc. For that reason I keep a kayak on my shore mooring. Even though the kayak is not long I am charged
for the length the mooring is rated for thus I pay almost twice the length of the mooring I use. I am a
Newport Beach resident and Mooring permitted. I Love boating and fishing here in Newport Harbor.
Please don't raise the Mooring fees, as this will have a Adverse effect to myself and Many others. The
burden will cause me to, if this is your plan, to release my rights as I cannot afford the over 500% or so
increase in price up to $300 or or more per month. Remember, even having a 18 ft or less boat, we are
Dry Docked on sand more than 50% of the time. Which also causes damage to boat over time. We also
have to replace the chain, and fix mooring a couple years as well.
Thanks for your consideration.
Phillip Rodas
714-801-7445
13-122
From: Peter Bergman <pjbergman4@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback
Subject: Proposed fee changes for shore mornings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Council merntbers,
I am a shore mooring holder for 15 years who lives on Balboa Island. Attached to my mooring is my little
Lido14 sail boat, "Red Head", which I sail regularly 8 months out of the year. Years ago, it was year-round
sailing. In my 70s now, the cold water in setting up and launching the boat is just too much. Which brings
me to something I'm not sure you've considered: the great limitations of "wet sailing" that shore
moorings present.
Any time I take the boat out, I am standing in knee to waist -deep water for a considerable time, both
launching and returning, as I put the sails on and off the boat. Sailing when I'm quite wet is draw -back
during many months of the year, but because the lower cost of a shore mooring (that I paid $15,000 to
own the rights to) make sailing affordable to me in my old age, I can continue my sailing hobby.
Increasing my mooring fees by 362% would definitely end that life-long hobby. I would have no choice
but to give up my mooring .... and of course my Red Head. Please consider the very particular features of a
shore mooring. It is NOTHING like a regular mooring, and even less like launching from a dock. You are in
effect pricing your elderly citizens out of a cherished pastime. Please be reasonable in your decision
making.
Thank you for your time,
Peter Bergman
120 Marine Avenue
Balboa Island
Sent from my iPad
13-123
From: Robert Barnard <robertebarnard@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the proposed Mooring rental increase by the
Harbor Commission, due to the following but not limited to reasons —
The proposed increase is significantly more than any other California city/county run mooring program,
as listed in the report.
The mooring rent appraisal report assumes no initial capital outlay.
It estimates what a monthly rent would be, had no upfront capital had been spent to be a mooring
permittee. By increasing the monthly rent significantly, you in essence wipe out most if not all value that
is held by a Mooring permittee. Maybe that's the intent, but if that is the intent then I ask you to
consider how you would feel if a government entity changed the rules which significantly devalued
something you held. Imagine the taxes on anything that you pay being increased 3x.
The appraisal report compares prices against yacht club prices. I am not a Yacht club member, I cannot
afford, nor do I wish to be a member. I'm just a normal guy who is trying to enjoy boat ownership and
not go broke in the process. Part of what appealed to me about the moorings was that I could put up
some initial capital, and not have to worry about a Marina continuing to increase rent. It allowed me
some stability in my finances, and ability to budget accordingly. Maybe that was a bad assumption, but
I'd be willing to bet that most citizens would not expect a 3x increase on fees/taxes from their
government. This has introduced significant volatility into the costs associated with that mooring
program. Imagine the anxiety that you would feel knowing that the commission just increased fees 3x,
and they very well could do it again another few years.
I understand there has been significant inflation in the past few years, and that a fee increase may be
warranted, but the fact that the appraisal estimate is so out of bed with the CPI increase, tells you that
something is wrong and biased with the appraisal report. I cannot think of any other tax, value, or fee
that has increased 3x in 5 years.
If you made it this far, then I thank you for reading my email. In closing I ask you to remember that the
moorings were not designed as a method to maximize revenue. They're there so that people can get out
on the water and experience the joy of boating without the continuing anxiety of 3x fee increases.
Thank you,
Robert Barnard
13-124
Mooring A41
13-125
From: Matt Clabaugh <matt@valenciagroupinc-com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Scully, Steve; wondeill@newportbeachca.gov; Dept - City Council
Cc: bgriffith@sclfinance.com
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Attachments: Mooring Fee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
13-126
From: Matt Clabaugh
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Scully, Steve; wondeill@newportbeachca.gov; Dept - City Council
CC: bgriffith@sclfinance.com
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Sirs:
I strongly disagree with any action to raise the historically stable mooring fees within the sphere
of influence of the city of Newport Beach. The market is at equilibrium, and there is no reason
to drastically change what has been a good public/private partnership for over 75 years.
If the morning fees are drastically raised as seems to be proposed, the nature of the harbor
will change for the worse.
Additionally,
I . The appraisal submitted has assumptions and methods that are inaccurate, easily
disputable, and subjective. It will certainly be challenged.
2. Said appraisal severely overstates the value of the moorings. It equates a vacant lot on
Lido Island to the value of a ball and chain in the water.
3. Unintended consequences will occur after such draconian increases. Major disruption to
long time morning lessees, restaurants and services, the boating industry, Newport's reputation,
harbor traffic, more.
4. Such action increases the likelihood that moorings will fall under scrutiny from state
housing authorities, including but not limited to SB-9, SB 10, AB345, AB491 and others. Do you
really want Sacramento to get involved?
I am a graduate of CdM, have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1974, and have run a
business in Newport Beach for over 20 years. I urge you to listen to some of us who know this
city. The consequences of such a drastic action will be detrimental to the unique qualities of my
home town.
Matt Clabaugh
The Valencia Group, Inc.
240 Newport Center Drive, #201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 720-8426 Fax -8427
Cal DRE 01250380
IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, together with any documents, files and/or
email messages attached to it, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and
may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and restricted from disclosure. If you are not the
13-127
intended recipient, or responsible for delivery to that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or
copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. In such case, please delete this message without
reading or saving, and notify the sender by reply email.
13-128
From: bgriffith sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:58 AM
To: Matt Clabaugh; Scully, Steve; wondeill@newportbeachca.gov; Dept - City
Council
Subject: RE: Mooring Fee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK linksmor attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Another concern is that when the media catches wind of discrimination issues in
Newport Beach, it reflects poorly on our beautiful city. We hold ourselves to higher
standards, and such incidents tarnish our reputation. The potential fallout from this
could have a lasting impact on how our city is perceived.
From: Matt Clabaugh <matt@valenciagroupinc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: sscullv@newportbeachca.gov; wondeill@newportbeachca.gov; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
Cc: bgriffith sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Sirs:
I strongly disagree with any action to raise the historically stable mooring fees within the sphere of
influence of the city of Newport Beach. The market is at equilibrium, and there is no reason to
drastically change what has been a good public/private partnership for over 75 years.
If the morning fees are drastically raised as seems to be proposed, the nature of the harbor will
change for the worse.
Additionally,
1. The appraisal submitted has assumptions and methods that are inaccurate, easily disputable,
and subjective. It will certainly be challenged.
2. Said appraisal severely overstates the value of the moorings. It equates a vacant lot on Lido
Island to the value of a ball and chain in the water.
3. Unintended consequences will occur after such draconian increases. Major disruption to long
time morning lessees, restaurants and services, the boating industry, Newport's reputation, harbor
traffic, more.
4. Such action increases the likelihood that moorings will fall under scrutiny from state housing
authorities, including but not limited to SB-9, S1310, A13345, AB491 and others. Do you really want
Sacramento to get involved?
13-129
I am a graduate of CdM, have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1974, and have run a business in
Newport Beach for over 20 years. I urge you to listen to some of us who know this city. The
consequences of such a drastic action will be detrimental to the unique qualities of my home town.
Matt Clabaugh
The Valencia Group, Inc.
240 Newport Center Drive, #201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 720-8426 Fax -8427
Cal DRE 01250380
IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, together with any documents, files and/or
email messages attached to it, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and
may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and restricted from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient, or responsible for delivery to that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or
copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. In such case, please delete this message without
reading or saving, and notify the sender by reply email.
13-130
From: kathryn777 <kathryn777@aol.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 12:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Council members,
I have read, and agree, with all the letters who oppose mooring rate increases. I would like to add one
other point: it is simply irresponsible.
Had these increases been done in gradual increments there would be time to adjust our budgets and
plan accordingly. At the risk of sounding like a child, these increases are just not fair. Imagine any
expense that you may have ( car, house, electric bill) being increased suddenly at this high rate and you
will have an idea of how we feel.
Please do the responsible thing and oppose these rate hikes.
K. O'Neal
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
13-131
From: Conner Colletto <connercolletto@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council
Subject: Urgent Appeal: Request to Reconsider Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Newport Harbor Commission,
I trust this message finds you well. My name is Conner Colletto (29), and I am writing to express
my concern regarding the proposed mooring rate increase in Newport Beach. As a resident and
passionate member of our maritime community, I would like to bring to your attention a few
crucial points that I believe merit reconsideration before implementing the proposed changes.
First and foremost, our city's coastal charm and nautical heritage are integral to its identity and
appeal. The accessibility of moorings has played a pivotal role in fostering a sense of community
among boaters, residents, and visitors alike. Any significant increase in mooring rates will
jeopardize this inclusive atmosphere, potentially dissuading avid boaters and maritime
enthusiasts from continuing to invest their time, money and energy in our beautiful harbor.
One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed rate hike is its potential impact on the
younger generation's involvement in boating. The current mooring rates already pose a financial
challenge for many individuals, particularly younger enthusiasts who are keen to embrace the
boating culture. An additional increase could further discourage their participation, hindering the
development of a new generation of sailors and maritime stewards. It is crucial for our
community's vitality that we encourage, rather than impede, the younger generation's
engagement with boating.
Moreover, it's essential to acknowledge the broader economic impact of such a rate hike.
Newport Beach has long been a destination for boaters, attracting tourism revenue and
contributing to the local economy. By keeping mooring rates reasonable, we ensure that our city
remains an attractive and welcoming destination for sailors and maritime enthusiasts, ultimately
supporting local businesses and jobs.
I understand that maintaining and improving the city's infrastructure requires financial resources.
However, I urge the city to explore alternative means of revenue generation or cost-cutting
measures before resorting to an increase in mooring rates. Collaborative efforts with stakeholders
and the boating community may present innovative solutions that can address the financial needs
without placing an undue burden on mooring owners.
Additionally, transparency in the decision -making process is crucial. I request that the city
provides a detailed breakdown of how the additional funds generated from the proposed rate
increase will be allocated. This will help foster trust and understanding among the community
members, demonstrating a commitment to responsible governance.
13-132
In conclusion, I respectfully urge the city to reconsider the proposed mooring rate increase,
taking into account the potential adverse effects on our maritime community, local economy, and
the aspirations of the younger generation. I believe that through open dialogue and collaborative
problem -solving, we can find a balanced and sustainable solution that benefits both the city and
its residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about any updates or
insights on this matter.
Regards,
Conner Colletto
805-616-0349
connercollettokyahoo-com
13-133
From: Jennifer Krestan <jenniferkrestan@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 1:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council Members:
As a mooring permittee in Newport Harbor, I find it difficult to understand why the
Harbor Commission wishes to undertake a rate increase that will make it more difficult,
if not financially impossible, for non -wealthy boat owners to keep their boats in Newport
Harbor.
The City of Newport Beach's original concept for the mooring fields was to create an
opportunity for common folk to be able to have a boat on a mooring and enjoy Newport
Harbor. It also included many shore moorings to allow boaters to access their off -shore
moorings.
Unlike piers and docks, offshore moorings have no amenities. With the exception of
shoreboat service provided by Balboa Yacht Club and Newport Harbor Yacht Club at a
cost to their members, there is no access to offshore moorings except by boats from on-
shore moorings ($$$) or trailers.
Based on the square feet of tidelands actually used by offshore moorings, offshore
mooring permittees are currently paying 5 to 10 times more than other users of the
tidelands, including waterfront homeowners with docks and major corporations that
operate marinas. The proposed increases make these differences far, far worse. We
have been advised that this blatantly violates the Beacon Bay Bill, we well as other
statues and regulations that govern the trusteeship of the harbor. It is plain
discrimination.
Over the past few years participation in sailboat racing in Orange County has declined
dramatically, partly due to COVID and largely due to the expenses associated with
maintaining a racing sailboat, e.g., entry fees, bottom cleaning, crew expenses, sail
maintenance and replacement, haul outs, fuel, etc. Increasing mooring fees is a good
way to assure a further decrease in race participation.
At some point the City became more interested in creating revenue than allowing the
people of Southern California the opportunity to enjoy Newport Harbor. This trend
appears to be growing to the extreme.
13-134
In addition, I believe this rate increase will result in abandoned boats that will need to be
sent to salvage, liveaboards forced to find other housing, a significant increase in empty
moorings, and failure to provide harbor access to everyone.
Newport Harbor belongs to the people of California, not the City of Newport Beach.
Thank you.
13-135
From: Michael Brandon <brzusa@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 1:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Unfair mooring rent increase
Attachments: Harbor Comission Stakeholder Meeting February Ist.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
6
Dear city council members,
I am a first generation boater trying to make a dream come true of exploring our oceans and beyond.
Recently the harbor commission sought an appraisal for the fair market value of the off -shore mooring
rent. Unfortunately, I disagree with the methodology and outcome of the professional appraisal.
Furthermore, the Harbor commission also disagreed but recommended an arbitrary increase to the city
council.
Please do not increase our mooring rent. I have included a brief document advocating for my situation
believe the rates should remain on their current increase schedule which matches CPL
The Harbor Commission is holding a stakeholder meeting on Thursday, February 1st at the civic center.
Could you please take the time to hear our concerns for yourself and see the people that have the most
to lose from this decision?
Kindly,
Michael Spano
Liveaboard
Mooring H510
13-136
7 reasons why off -shore mooring rent should
remain unchanged.
I - Netzer appraisal remains flawed
2. Newport Beach has no shore facilities
3. Newport Beach created a free market
4. Mooring field boaters are an asset to the community
5. The proposed rate increase is absurd in magnitude
6. Newport Beach profits twice from off -shore moorings
7. Off -shore moorings are already over -charged
13-137
1. Netzer appraisal remains flawed
• This has been discussed at Harbor Comission meetings and through email to the
commissioners ag nosium. Netzer's appraisal cannot be trusted as fair.
• The harbor commission rejected Netzer's inflated valuation but recommended
their own arbitrary rate increase.
9 The city shall not increase our burden based on the Harbor Comission
recommendations of an appraisal where an entire page of said appraisal is
omitted/mis sing.
13-138
2. Newport Beach has no shore facilities!
9 The city offers minimal facilities to mooring permittees.
• Street parking (subject to towing)
• Public restrooms
• Shared public dock (maximum time limit of 72h)
• Unmetered Drinking water
• Free Sewage pump out
For an increase of 263% for my mooring I would expect:
• Dedicated parking.
• Long-term dingy dock.
• Dedicated restrooms.
• Hot showers.
• Sall loft/ workshop.
• Ability to book conference rooms at Marina Park
• Free coffee & warm cookies
13-139
I Newport Beach created a free market
Whether we like it or not, Newport beach created a free market to buy/sell
mooring permits.
Mooring permits cost a lot of money (1.-S40,000.001ea) but have amenable taxation
rates $150/month).
9 Newport Beach off -loads the traditional waitlist to one that revolves around saving
income for a permit.
It took me 5 years of saving 70% of my discretional income to purchase a mooring
permit. I sacrificed a lot to obtain this right and now I expect fair taxation.
13-140
4. Mooring field boaters are an asset to the community
Most people in the mooring field are average people. Newport beach boaters are
policemen, teachers, lawyers, welfare recipients, machinists, carpenters, scientists
and so much more.
9 There is a constant exchange of knowledge among permittees regarding all affairs
of seamanship.
• Our boats are not " toys" they are our lives! Many of us forgo a land -based home
to experience the wonders of the ocean on our boats.
• We are often first -responders to all incidents on the water, from electric duffy
crashes to stranded paddleboarders.
13-141
5. The proposed rate increase is absurd in magnitude
* As Newport Beach boaters, we already pay property tax on our vessels and
mooring rent.
Comissioners/council members/fellow citizens. Imagine if you did your research,
planned out your mortgage, saved your income to cover city taxes and purchased a
property within your means.
• Then suddenly the city/bank proposes to increase your monthly tax/rent from 200-
500%. How would this influence your life?
• Put yourselves in our shoes.
13-142
6. Newport Beach profits twice from off -shore moorings
• I paid $40,000 for a mooring, $2400 yearly in mooring taxes, and $1800
biannually for tackle.
• The Harbormaster may rent out my mooring when it is unoccupied for $80/day
($2400/month).
• I cannot sublease my mooring to other boaters, friends or even family.
• I cannot operate an AirBNB from my mooring.
• I do not receive any revenue when the harbormaster subleases my mooring.
• The mooring exists at my expense but for the profit of the city.
13-143
7. Off -shore moorings are already over -charged
In Newport Beach
• Residential docks pay 1/6ththe annual tax that I pay
• Residential docks are allowed to rent their tideland access for a profit
In San Diego
• Off -shore moorings in America's Cup Harbor pay 70% what I pay
• They don't pay for tackle maintenance
• They don't have to spend $40k on a mooring permit
13-144
Please explain how a rate
0
increase of 2630./�(o for my
0 0 0 0 ?
mooring is considered fair .
MichaelSpano
Liveaboard
Mooring H5 10
13-145
From: gerald saba <gwsaba@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 2:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
6
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing this letter in hopes that you care about the plight of boat owners in Newport Harbor. I have
been a mooring owner in this beautiful harbor for about 50 years. The previous mooring rates have
allowed my wife and I to remain boaters here and share the harbor with our family. We are both retired
teachers living on fixed pensions.
The proposed mooring rate hikes would force us, and many others, out of boating. Please consider
this as you vote on these proposed exorbitant rate hikes.
Sincerely,
Jerry and Anna Saba
13-146
From: Glenn Bozarth <glen n boz@ya hoo.corn>
Sent: January 30, 2024 2:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
13-147
Dear Madames and Sirs:
13-148
As a long-time permittee for an onshore mooring, and also a Newport Beach resident, I'm writing to state
my objection and alarm regarding the Mooring Fee increases that are being proposed.
My family has had a shore mooring since the 1950s, and enjoyed the benefits while managing the
challenges that this involves.
As you are surely aware, the'utility'of a mooring doesn't at all compare with that of dock space. We have
no electricity or fresh water available to us; we must wade into the bay to launch and board our boats;
and -- in the case of my mooring -- we must navigate narrow space between docks to come and go. Mine
is the solo mooring between two bay front docks that are home to large boats. Particularly since mine is
a sailboat (Lido 14) it's quite tricky at times to access the bay.
The moorings are one of very few means by which people without oversize financial means can access
the harbor. Newport Beach has a well -deserved reputation at a playground for the elite, and this action
would further that truth. And all the while no increase for the docks of the owners of $10 million plus
homes?
While some increase may be appropriate, the magnitude of that proposed is outrageous. For myself and
others, it would cause us to abandon our moorings. And I'm doubtful that, at those rates, you'd find
others to take our place.
Please realize the impact that this action would have, and preserve the opportunity for affordable access
to our unique and beautiful bay.
Thank you for your consideration,
Glenn Bozarth
Mooring E-20
13-149
From: Samantha McDonald <sammcS773@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Request to Reject Increase Offshore Mooring Rental Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear Newport Beach City Council and staff,
My name is Samantha McDonald. I am a resident of Newport Beach, a PhD Alumni at UC Irvine, and an
avid sailor in Newport's harbor and beyond.
I am contacting you in regards to the Harbor Commission's proposed increase in fair market rent for
offshore moorings. My partner and I live on our sailboat on a mooring ball. During graduate school, my
partner and I saved up money to afford to purchase one of these mooring balls. It allows us to call
Newport Beach our home at an affordable rate. It also allows us access to the water and to fulfill our
dream of sailing the Pacific Ocean during a two-year 'sea'-battical.
As you are probably aware, the Harbor Commission recently hired a third party to re-evaluate the fair
market rent of our mooring ball. The third -party has estimated that the rates for owning a mooring
should be increased 600%, and the commission has indicated they will increase between 360% and
600%. This means that the City of Newport Beach could increase the annual rent for those living in the
harbor up to 600%. This is an unfathomable increase in any housing situation, but especially dire for
those in a high -rent county facing already difficult affordable housing situations.
Our neighbors in the mooring field are working class citizens (cops, firefighters, harbor patrol, business
men, machine shop workers, scientists), retired individuals that have sailed the world, and people just
trying to get by. Our community takes care of the harbor and watershed because it is our home. Our
neighbors have also been first on the scene to many incidents of drowning, boat crashes, and even
helicopter crashes. We have a deep passion for the harbor as many of us sailed all our lives. Sailboats
are the icon of Newport Beach (including the city's insignia). All of us will have nowhere to go if the City
decides to increase rates by such a large amount.
This estimate from the third -party was based, in our opinion, on very bad math and uneducated
awareness of the overall market for moorings, slips, and harbor usage. We have discussed the details of
the inappropriate calculations in our public comments to the committee. The Harbor Commission has
proposed its own rates based on the third party evaluation, but has not provided any evidence of how
those rates were calculated as well. These rates are still more than double the current rates and provide
no sound explanation for their calculation. Thus, we can only conclude that the rates proposed by the
city are arbitrary.
Many of our neighbors are considering fighting back with some already filing lawsuits against the city. I
hope that the community can come to a harmonious agreement that avoids such tensions.
I am requesting that the City reject these increases in rates. It's clear given the current values within
the private market transfer of moorings, the overall cost of mooring maintenance and living compared
13-150
to similar mooring situations, and the affordable housing crisis of Orange County that these rate
increases are unjustified.
Thank you for your time listening to your constituents. I am happy to talk more if you have any
questions.
Dr. Samantha McDonald
(443) 690 - 2021
sammc5773(@Lymail.com
13-151
From: Carter Harrington <carter.harrington@gmail.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 3:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fees
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
City Council
I strongly support keeping mooring rates at their current rate. There is no justification for the increase
and you are making boating un-afforclable in newport and decreasing public use.
13-152
From: Diane Bock <dianebirniebock@mac.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 5:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: on shore mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please, please do not drastically raise the rates for on -shore moorings. Can we PLEASE retain the
opportunity for families to own and use small boats without breaking the bank? Many generations of
kids have grown up here, learned to sail and row and many, many have gone on to sail bigger boats - and
to use the skills they learn to bolster the community .......
What a shame if keeping the boat costs more each year than the original purchase price. I'm trying to
imagine the consequence of costly mooring fees - likely bigger, fancier boats and this will decrease the
appeal of the beaches by forming a blockade.
Does this need to be all about money?
— Diane Bock
13-153
From: Christopher Hoskins <chris@insourceintl.com>
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:06 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Newport Harbor Mooring Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council Members,
I recently reviewed the proposed rate hike schedule for moorings in Newport Harbor, and I can't
comprehend why they are so dramatic.
As a business owner, I understand that rate hikes are necessary. However, annual rate hikes should be in
the 3% to 7% range.
Please set reasonable rate hikes moving forward.
Thank you,
Chris Hoskins
58 Cormorant Circle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
714-470-6400
13-154
From: Kathy Shaw <kathyashaw5@gmail.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:00 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council,
I am writing to voice my opinion on the increase in mooring fees. The cost of everything is going up and
it is understandable that mooring fees will increase as well but to raise the fees this much and this fast
puts good people in jeopardy. This is wrong and I am totally against such an increase.
Sincerely,
Kathy Shaw
13-155
From: Lisa Worsch <Iworsch@me.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am writing to you regarding the proposed increase in private mooring fees.
I have been a resident taxpayer of Newport Beach since 1994.
The proposed increase in private mooring fees is outrageous. It fosters elitism by making it cost
prohibitive & by limiting access to safe anchorage. It is discriminatory against multilhull ownership as that
vessel cannot be kept in a regular boat slip space.
The Harbor Commission is not representing the interests of our Newport Beach citizens.
Thank you.
Lisa Worsch MD
Sent from my Whone
Lisa Worsch MD
13-156
From: Jessie Fleming <jessiefleming@icloud.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 9:09 AM
To: Harbor Feedback; Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
My husband and I have lived aboard in Newport Beach since 1987. It was our dream to pay off our boat
save up a cruising kitty and cruise around the world. We successfully achieved our goal cruising for over
7yrs in the 90's-2000. We still live on our boat on our mooring and our livelihood is captaining yachts. We
are happily semi -retired living on Social Security and Captaining jobs. We have raised 3 children and love
Living in Beautiful Newport Beach as our home. Unfortunately the City continues to raise our mooring
rates even though they provide no electricity, no showers, no parking and no facilities other then a
public dock to leave our dingy ashore while off the boat. The city is now proposing to increase all
mooring monthly payments with an increase of over 400%. Many of us who have lived here for over 40
years will no longer be able to afford the mooring rates. Many of us have budgeted to retire here on our
social security income and can not afford slip rent which leaves us no where to go. We are a community
who helps police the bay, the public docks and have saved many boats in distress, paddle boarders, and
even saved non swimmers from drowning after falling off their rented paddle boards. There are
approximately 48 live aboard permits out of the 700. We are all good citizens with legal live aboard
permits. Most liveaboards are retirees and follow the many rules of the bay. We are all enjoying our
homes in Newport Beach and contributing to the community. Many nonliveaboards travel from all over
Orange County to enjoy beautiful Newport Beach on their boats and will not be able to afford the
increase as well. If you're interested in keeping mooring rates affordable for everyone to enjoy and not
social engineering please hear our plea.
Thankyou
Jessie Fleming
Mooring J23
13-157
From: Kevin Olswang <kevinolswang@gmail.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Mooring permit holder. The 300% increase to mooring holders is completely outrageous and unfair
Sent from my Whone
13-158
From: potenza04@aol.com
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Permit Fee Incease
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
From: Don Potenza
To: Newport Beach City Council
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.
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. Even 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 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.
The appraiser 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. The
only one that are having rates increased are a very small portion of moorings in San
Diego. Those rates are scheduled to increase over time and I don't believe have
started yet. They may never become effective if the holders try to get it
changed. Those moorings also have amenities that we do not and I believe are
managed by a for profit company. Let the Newport Mooring Association hire an
Independ Appraiser who has experience in this area.
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
13-159
market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it is at the 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.
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 and in FY 23-24 their
Total Operating Budget cost the city $2,445,960. Their Salaries and Benefits
alone are $1,523,633. They have gone from 3 Full Time Employees and 9.39 Part
Time in FY 22 & FY 23 to 9 Full Time and 4.29 Part Time in FY 24. Like I said I've
been around here a long time and although I don't know the numbers for 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. There has been little improvement
since the Harbor Department took over except for the docks they have and little
else. Is it really worth using this exorbitant amount of your money?
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.
13-160
From: Robert Kinney <robert@alcommarine.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:34 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
H i:
I represent two different segments of the mooring population. My family owns a
11city mooring". Certainly, we understand that all things cost more these
days. But the massive, proposed increase will eliminate a whole segment of the
boating population from bay. Once upon a time, Newport Beach lived for the
harbor. As the town transitions from a bunch of "beach houses" to full time
residents, we need to make sure that the lower end of the boating community is
not jettisoned. There is a reason that a mooring is a low-cost
solution. Remember a mooring is a pain in the rear to deal with. You are
required to have a boating skillset to be able to get on and off, plus you must have
a plan in place to get back and forth. These people are better to have in our
harbor as opposed to a bunch of dinner boats and Rental Duffys.
From a business perspective, I own Alcom Marine Electronics which services
several of the mooring owners. The massive increase in costs may just eliminate a
whole echelon of customers we have. When I was in High School, the harbor was
full of boat dealers, and service businesses, half of those have had to move "up
the hill" to avoid the high cost of doing business in the harbor, the other half are
gone. Just think about Mariner Mile in 1975, and then look at it today. It no
longer is worried about supporting the marine community.
Don't just see this as an opportunity for a revenue increase, please keep in mind
that most of the mooring owners have a family -oriented asset out on the bay,
which the preservation of this lifestyle is essential for our community.
Thank you,
13-161
Robert Kiitmey
Alcom Marine Electronics
711 West 17th Street
Unit C 12
Costa Mesa, California 92627
949 515 1727 office
949 279 5048 mobiJe
13-162
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: February 1 Meeting to discuss Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
January 31, 2024
To the Newport Beach City Council and Harbor Commission
It seems like every couple of years the Harbor Commission is intent on resurrecting the increase of
mooring permit fees. I thought that the current per foot pricing was a good compromise for the city
and the boat owners.
When I first acquired the 40 foot mooring, the monthly permit fee was a dollar per foot; thus I paid
$40 per month. The permit fee rate certainly needed an adjustment. I currently pay $133. 50 per
month, with an annual increase of 2 to 3 percent. This seems fair.
It now appears that you want to raise the permit fee to $480 per month. 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? This is a ridiculous increase!
Once again the City Council and the Harbor Commission are toying with a privilege for boat owners
to afforclably access and use the harbor in a meaningful way, while providing revenue for the City of
Newport as well as adjunct businesses. Why is it always about the money? What is the cost to
revenue ratio for the City to operate the Harbor Patrol and the permit process? Have you all
forgotten the legacy of the moorings in the harbor and their proposed intent?
Unless you can definitively explain the necessary reason for this increase to me, I strongly
encourage you to NOT increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(a-)qmail.com
13-163
From: Eric Young <ericyoung0210@gmail-com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Scully, Steve; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie; Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy;
Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council; Harp, Aaron;
O'Neill, William; jstapelton@newportbeachca.gov; Avery, Brad; Weigand,
Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; warren.crunk@slc.ca.gov
Subject: Objection to Discriminatory Practices Against Mooring Permittees
ItA I tKFVAL UVIMET=1,10 I %-Ll%-r, 1111KIWattachments unlessTu recognize the sender and know the content
Good afternoon,
I am a homeowner and business owner in Newport Beach. I purchased my 45ft offshore mooring permit
in 2017. 1 write to express opposition to the recent discriminatory practices targeting Newport Harbor
Mooring Permittees.
The proposed rate hike for offshore moorings constitutes illegal discrimination and reflects disparate
treatment of offshore mooring permittees in relation to bayfront homeowners (and other users of
Newport Harbor). The proposed rate hike is unconscionable and would operate to force the sale of
mooring permits due to the unafforclable rate hikes. This unconscionable rate hike is similar to
problematic real estate property tax increases which were stopped by California Proposition 13.
There should be no change to the current offshore mooring rate structure.
Previously, the Newport Harbor Commission attacked the rights of mooring permittees through
proposed Title 17 amendments and proposed dangerous design changes to the mooring fields. Although
the purported goal of the design change was to increase usable space in the harbor, the City
simultaneously allowed construction of new docks which extend into the navigable area near the back
bay bridge. The design of the mooring fields should not be changed and Title 17 should not be amended.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Young
818-458-2570
ericyoung02lO@gmail.com
13-164
From: thompsonmike148@gmaiI.com
Sent: January 31, 2024 2:57 PIVI
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council
Subject: comment letter
Attachments: comment letter.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Regarding mooring fees
13-165
To the Harbor Commission and whoever else this concerns,
My name is Mike Thompson and my partners and I own Newport Landing
Sportfishin and Daveys Locker Sportfishing and Whale Watching. We own 4 x 75
foot moorings in the harbor and are very concerned with the proposed increases
in monthly / annual "rental" fees. We have the following comments which you
can address at the meeting tomorrow evening.
We purchased the rights to our moorings from private individuals over the 45
years that we have been in business in Newport Harbor, as we added vessels to
our fleet. The fees were reasonable and cheaper than renting slips at docks
around the harbor. This fit our business model and allowed us to grow. Over the
last several years the moorings have become a contentious issue with plans to
reconfigure the existing mooring fields, and associated finger pointing about the
Cities intentions- We did not get involved in all that after concerns were
addressed by Mr Beer at a Council meeting last year. However, this latest issue
raises a whole new set of concerns.
1 — The pro po sed new mo nth ly rates pe r foot a re co m plete ly u n rea sona b le i n ou r
opinion. Our 75 foot moorings are going from $3 + per foot to $17 + per foot per
month after an analysis by a consulting firm. Absolutely out of line, A previous
exercise several years ago resulted in much smaller increases over the last 3 years
so where did you cherry pick this new firm from. Botton line our 4 moorings will
i ncrea se f ro rn a bout $ 11, 000 pe r yea r to $61,000 pe r yea r. Th i s is p roblem ati c fo r
the continued success of our business.
2 - These moorings are located on state waters as they are beyond the pier head
boundary line. I don't know the details of jurisdiction here but at the very least I
am sure the Coastal Commission would have something to say.
3 — A lot of th ese moo ri ngs a re ow ned by peo ple who have sm a I ler vesse Is, some
of them live aboard, retired folks or lower income people who will not be able to
afford this HUGE "rental" increase. I remember when I was growing up on the
peninsula my parents had a small boat that we kept on a mooring in the A field.
They wou Id not h ave been a bl e to afford someth i ng I i ke w hat you p ro pose here
At some point this becomes a public access issue which I am sure the Coastal
Commission would love to comment on.
13-166
4 - You have also submitted estimates of what the moorings are worth. If you
enforce these rent -increases the moorings will be greatly devalued because due to
the expense they will no longer be in demand.
5 -1 keep referring to your use of the term "rentals" in quotation marks because I
think there is a certain degree of ownership here as these mooring have been
trading privately forever. I think you need to come to grips with that. Especially
when you consider that the city does not even pay for the maintenance of the
moorings. We do.
So, these are just a few of our concerns and I am sure you will get more from
others who have been more involved in this issue for many years. The mooring
association of which we are not a member comes to mind. So don't make this
look like a land grab, because it does.
Mike Thompson / Newport Landing Sportfishing
13-167
From: Matt Trenton <matttrenton@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 3:19 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Rate Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council Member(s),
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed increase in onshore/offshore mooring fees which
is to be reviewed at the February 1 st Council meeting. I have resided in the Newport Beach area for many
years and it has long been a dream of mine to own a boat that would be moored in Newport Harbor. In
2021, my wife & I felt that we were in a financial position that we could finally make this dream a
reality. We purchased a mooring permit at that time and shortly thereafter purchased a boat which we
use regularly.
Since we purchased our mooring, we have been incredibly happy with the joy and beauty of Newport
Harbor. It truly is an experience that we never would have been privy to if we had not taken the leap and
proceeded with our purchases. We regularly invite friends and family to join us. It gives us great joy
when children visit and they are able to learn how to protect local wildlife, be good stewards of the
environment and catch & release their first fish! We are a family of nature lovers and I can't think of a
better way to immerse a new generation into nature and stress the importance of taking care of the
environment.
With that being said, the currently proposed increases in monthly mooring rates are absurd; in my
opinion. I do not have an issue with nominal rate increases commensurate with inflation, etc.. but an
overnight increase of several hundred percent I frankly do not understand. When reviewing the Appraisal
Report provided by Netzer & Associates, it is very challenging to see how this could be an apples -to -
apples comparison. It seems that the basis of their analysis researches private yacht club mooring fees
and attempts to apply those findings to justify rate increases. This does not make sense as several other
services (tenders, maintenance of mooring tackle, etc..) are included in private mooring
fees. Additionally, it seems that the report attempts to compare marina slip fees and miscellaneous real
estate values to justify findings. There is very little information that I could find in this report to provide an
unbiased comparison to the question at hand for moorings in Newport Harbor. The current fees for
Newport Harbor appear to be very much in line with the data collected from other comparable public
harbors in the state (page #33 of report). It seems that the appraisal started with a rental rate in mind and
then tried to work backwards & provide the math to justify a number rather than providing a truly impartial
analysis of the fair market rent.
In summary, I would strongly encourage you to reconsider the proposed mooring fee increases. This
would create a financial hardship for (in my best guess) a majority of the permit holders. I feel that a
majority of permittees would be trying to transfer their permits immediately & would also try to sell their
boats as they would have nowhere to park them. This will create a downward spiral for the boating
community in the Newport Harbor. A reasonable increase in fees commensurate with inflation would be
acceptable but an increase of the proposed amount is unfathomable.
Thank you for your consideration,
13-168
Matt Trenton
13-169
From: George Wallims <tryjcnow@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 6:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Morning fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Where are we headed? 50 years ago I was in my twenties and I had a 24-foot Sloop in a slip for $30 a month,
and now 50 years later minimum wage is $17 a month a 24-ft boat in a slip will cost
you over $2,000 a month. Our country's deficit is over 33 trillion dollars! Why is that? Could it be government
spending? I volunteer to take Disabled American Veterans out sailing all the time. Maybe our government
officials should do volunteer work instead
of having such exorbitant salaries. My point is this, where will we be 50 years from now? I believe what you
are doing with the mooring fees is unconscionable! You will be making it unaffordable for us to stay here in
the harbor! I think one thing that you
should consider is the people that have been Faithfully paying their morning fees over the last 20-30 years. I
myself have had my morning for 25 years and I have invested over $75,000 in it. I believe you should
grandfather those that have been here for all
these years and give an exemption to the high fees that you are proposing. I also believe that veterans should
be given that same consideration. We have been here for 50 years and wanted to spend the rest of our lives
fulfilling our dream! Please don't take
that away from us. When you talk about fair market value? Are you talking fair market value to the wealthy,
to the middle class, or to the poor?
Regards,
George M Wallims
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
13-170
From: Cathy Kinney <kinney406@gmail.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:06 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council; Scully, Steve;
O'Neill, William
Subject: Newport Harbor mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good evening,
I write to all of you today as a 60 year citizen of Newport Beach, a boat owner and a mooring
owner. I am very concerned about the proposed rent increase for offshore moorings in
Newport Harbor. The substantial increase is going to negatively impact not only the boat
owners but also all those who enjoy using our beautiful bay. Those of us who keep our boats
on a mooring are caretakers of the bay. We keep an eye out on each other's boats and report
issues to the Harbor Department. We also help other boaters, both residents and tourists,
when they need assistance while out on the bay. The moorings are also home to many legal
live-aboards, some of whom will not be able to afford the increase. Affordable housing is
scarce in Orange County and your change is going to make it worse.
Those of us who keep our boats on a mooring do not have the advantages of those who keep
theirs on private piers or marinas but we are the ones who are getting our rates drastically
increased. I ask you to please consider how your increase in mooring fees is going to adversely
affect a group of people that love Newport Harbor and may no longer be able to afford to keep
a boat here.
Thank you,
Cathy Kinney
13-171
From: George Wallims <tryjcnow@yahoo.com>
Sent: January 31, 2024 9:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
The proposed rate increase on mooring fees will curtail my ability to enjoy boating in Newport harbor, as I
have been here for 50 years and was looking forward to finishing the rest of my days
here. I feel a sense of being unfairly targeted and discriminated against to these proposed fee increases,
particularly, when comparing my situation with private peers and similar Tideland permits that remain
unaffected! I feel that the methods of appraisal
have been unfairly and incorrectly done! I would also like to refer you to the Beacon Bay bill, where Newport
City is to provide affordable boating! What you are proposing is definitely not affordable! In essence what you
are doing is quadrupling someone's
living expenses! I think one thing that you should consider is the people that have been Faithfully paying
their Mooring fees over the last 20 to 30 years. I myself have had my morning for 25 years and I have invested
over $75,000 in it. I believe you should
grandfather in those that have been here for all these years and give an exemption to the high fees that you
are proposing. I also believe that veterans should be given that same consideration. We have been here for 50
years and wanted to spend the rest of
our lives fulfilling our dream! Please do not take that away from us! Regards, George M Wallims
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
13-172
From: Jeanne Conwell <jkconwell@yahoo-com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 10:29 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Council Members,
As a current mooring lessee for more than 30 years, I am very surprised by the proposed mooring fee
increase which is exorbitant.
Please consider an increase which is resonable. We not only pay for the monthly lease, but the
maintenance of the mooring.
In question are mooring holder discrimination, unreliable methods of appraisal and providing affordable
boating.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeanne Conwell
Corona Del Mar
Mooring D025
13-173
From: Jeff Johnston <jeff.johnston3@gmail.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
kli,safe.
The current proposed mooring fees are simply outrageous and unjustified. Boating is a sport for all
income levels and moorings especially have been a cost effective way to keep it affordable for all. There
is absolutely no justification for raising rates.
We as permit holders pay ALL the maintenance costs for these assets, not the city. We also paid the
prior owners with an expectation of predictable use and cost. The city rents these assets that THEY don't
maintain and keeps 100% of the revenue. If rates are increased for transient short term rentals, that is a
chance to make money, but NOT increased fees for the permanent permit holders. It's about as close to
theft as I can imagine.
Jeff
13-174
From: Steven Legere <stevenwlegere@aol.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
0 on fee increase
Sent from my Whone
13-175
From: joanne harrison <windydogs@gmail.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:14 PM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Folks,
The proposed rate increases are definitely unreasonable. The moorings are again being targeted when
the docks and private piers also have similar Tideland permits and are not charged nearly as
much. Compared to the shore moorings we have extremely limited access, no facilities, and no ability to
add direct power and water access.
It is unreasonable that we are being discriminated against in this way.
JoAnne Harrison
13-176
From: Randall Newcomb <newcomb.randall@gmail.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I understand the necessity to raise funds for future projects, but the current proposal definitely looks to
be discriminatory against permit holders for moorings even though all permit holders for the harbor are
under the same use laws. If you intend to raise rates, then they should be equal across all permit holders
in the harbor at a minimum. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form.
Appreciate your time,
Randall
13-177
From: Desi Jones <captaindesijones@gmail.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Offshore mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good evening.
This email is to voice my opposition to the rate increases proposed.
My mooring in Avalon cost me 2376. Including CC fees of 3%.
That comes out to less than 200$ per month. I'm not sure where your appraiser came up with the
numbers he did but they ar way off for the market value.
Also the amount shoreside dock leases pay is considerably less than you would have the offshore
mooring pay.
Please realize our ability to enjoy our harbor and surrounding waters will be greatly impacted by such an
increase.
Thank you Desi Jones
Mooring J49
13-178
From: Wayne Fultz <fultzdude@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:40 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring increase. Please keep the increase tied to something ..like my 100%
combat veteran benefit..
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
6
74 year old veteran..with. grandkids..so I my enjoy the last season of my life..God give you
wisdom.in.Jesus name
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
13-179
From: kartbin <kartbin@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: No Mooring rate increases. Decreases only
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
I'm requesting that there be no mooring rate increases. We are not receiving any services so the rats
should decrease.
Meanwhile, dock owners are paying low rates and have the ability to rent dock space and therefore
generate income. This is completely inequitable and unreasonable.
Be reasonable and fair please!
Thank you, Linda Miller
13-180
From: Pengalo <pengalo@aol.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase- Opposed.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Members of the City Council -
Thank you for inviting public comment on the Mooring Permits, Fees, and
Reg u lations/Pol icies. Please include my email as part of the public record on the matter
of proposed changes to the mooring permit fees and regulations.
For the sake of brevity, I will state that as a th i rd -generation property owner on Balboa
Island (324 Amethyst) & shore -mooring permittee (N145), I am in concurrence with the
Newport Mooring Association's stated concerns regarding the proposed changes to the
mooring fields and mooring permit costs.
I ask you as our representatives to reject the proposed "What the Market Will Bear"
approach, which will drive out all but the wealthiest and most elite citizens and converts
the City from a governance and administrative role into a for -profit business striving to
maximize return of the permittees to subsidize less profitable City operations. The fees
for business -operated use of the tidelands such as boat -rental docks, fuel docks, and
restaurant -patron docks are an appropriate application of a market -value approach, but
NOT our recreational -use moorings.
It is my position that city fees should be based upon a fair estimate of the cost of the
service provided by the city, in this case the issuance and administration of our mooring
permits and the monitoring of our moorings on -the -water, not some fair -market -rent
value, as we are not renting anything. We are conferred no exclusive property right to
the surface or tideland, can not sub -let or lend "our" mooring to another, and are
responsible for providing and maintaining to city standards all of our mooring tackle,
lines, posts etc. All we have is a permit to place and maintain these things and an
obligation to not obstruct any public use of the waters or tidelands we "occupy" with our
mooring.
Again, please be responsive to the concerns of the Newport Mooring Association as
well as considering my concerns and perspective on a more proper approach to the
mooring fees.
I III - M11 q. hVeem
Peter Leinau
Mooring Permittee N145
13-181
Property owner 324 Amethyst
cc: Newport Mooring Association
13-182
From: Jon Kosoff <jonkosoff@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increases - Disappointed Mooring Owner
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello,
I know there is a meeting tonight and unfortunately I am unable to make it.
As a new mooring owner I am shocked and outraged by the proposed increases. I am a long time
Newport Beach Resident. I have lived here for 45 years. I finally got a mooring after I was able to afford
one and am excited to have it with my wife and kids. I am mooring N7.
I understand a small cost of living increase but this is so outrageous. It isn't right or fair. Frankly I may
have not purchased the mooring if I knew this was the case. My investment will be worth less money and
frankly I am not sure I can afford it long term at this level of increase.
This seems like a total money grab and not fair to honest hard working Newport Beach residents. Again
happy with small increases and that makes sense and inflation and management costs increase. But this
is 100% wrong!
I am 100% against the increase and frankly am shocked this would even be legal.
Happy to discuss over the phone.
Thanks,
Jon & Kaite Kosoff
949.309.9969
13-183
From: Winner1436 <winnerl436@aol.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Joe and other council members
i have owned my shore mooring for over 40 years
during our current times I understand the need to increases prices due to inflation and
cost related change
but the proposal for our moorings is outrageous.
I have never heard of anything changing that drastically.
i would ask you to look at this please
how can a change even be proposed to be this much??.
a change in price is warranted - but not something like this.
and whatever the increase might be - there should be a look at how to implement
this. maybe a prop 11 approach -for existing long time mooring holders have a small
change every year - but new holders have a much larger change upon their start up
thank you for your support
buzz Lowry
mooring P 102
13-184
From: Dale Bowman <dalebaja@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: 2024 Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Hello. My name is Dale Bowman. I moved to Newport in 1968. My wife and I have been mooring
holders since 2005
I am 70 years old. I have owned boats since I was 11 years old. I learned to design boats, and in 1976 1
designed my own boat, a 25'trimaran.
I built her myself and launched her in 1981. 1 originally had an end -tie (the boat is 18'wide, so won't fit in
a standard slip). I paid $228 per month to Lido Yacht Anchorage.
Incremental increases raised our slip rent to $675 per month. For a 25' boat. We could not afford this, so
moved our boat to San Diego. We got a nice end -tie there, with water, electricity, tons of parking, for
$198 per month.
Unfortunately, it was a 75-minute drive.
We stayed there for 6 years. But I had grown up sailing in Newport Harbor. We missed it. Our only
solution to getting back into Newport was to purchase a mooring. In 2005 we did so ... for $40,000. In
addition, we pay $133 per month, for a 40' mooring. Add roughly $50 more dollars per month for the
semi-annual mooring servicing. We are still happy to pay this, as we can continue to sail in Newport.
Fast forward to 2024. We are retired and living on a fixed income. Boating is still a big part of our
lives. With the new proposed increase to almost $500 per month, $550 with the mooring servicing, we
simply will be unable to afford this any longer. I certainly hope this is not your goal. I am not ready to
give up sailing.
I believe this exorbitant fee is excessive. I doubt Newport Beach is in such dire straits financially that it
has to turn to 1,200 mooring holders for revenue.
I'm curious how much the Newport homeowners pay per month, to park their multi -million dollar boats in
front of their multi -million dollar homes. Maybe they just have too much financial power to be taken
on. This is sad.
Please reconsider this huge increase. Imagine if your home mortgage just increased 500%
1 appreciate your time.
Dale Bowman
13-185
From: Penpearl <penpearl@aol.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:55 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
My family has lived on Balboa Island since 1942 and we have had an onshore mooring
for the majority of that time. We keep our boat insured, registered and have the mooring
serviced every two years as required. It has been wonderful to have access to the water
and ocean and a beautiful experience to grow up with and appreciate the beauty of our
wonderful city, bay and ocean. Many of us long time residents are not rich and this is
one of the few remaining things we can enjoy for a reasonable price. I can understand
a small increase but not the huge ones that are being discussed. We would probably
not be able to afford it. Newport Beach is not only for the rich that are new to the city.
Thank you for your consideration,
Penny Darling
120 Pearl Avenue
Balboa Island
(949) 675-2661
13-186
From: Tim Geiman <timgeiman@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:18 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council
Subject: Opposition to Mooring Rental Rate Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
,All-.
This proposed increase is a blatant unfair targeting of mooring holders utilizing questionable and
unreliable appraisal methods. A huge rate increase will greatly impact everyone's ability to enjoy boating
in Newport Harbor. Mooring holders get virtually no benefits from the City to begin with so this massive
proposed increase is comical to even propose. There are no shore boats, no electrical and areas to get a
washdown or fill up water.
As a mooring holder and Newport Beach resident, I oppose the proposed rental rate increases for
mooring permits.
Tim Geiman
timqeiman(��yahoo.com
949.200.7495
13-187
From: Dave Morse <drmorse@gba-inc.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Potential Mooring Rate Increase
Dear CounciL Members,
I am doing aLL I can to attend this evening's meeting on 2/11/2024. The storm conditions and
the impact they have had on mywork may make attendance impossibLe.
I am presentLy a mooring permittee. My wife and I Love our Little sLice of Newport Harbor
and have kept our boat on H-35 since 2011. The cards deaft to us have forced us to Live on
my income aLone. StiLL, we are abLe to own and maintain a boat under the current rates
charged by Newport Beach. My concern is that if fees increase as much as has been
pubLished, they may price me out of Newport. I Love Newport, I aLways have and aLways
wiLL. I want nothing more than to continue being abLe to afford boat ownership in the
harbor.
PLease do aLL you canto keep the mooring fees at the afforclabLe rate they are now. 1knowl
am not aLone in my fear of being priced out of the harbor. Rate increases based on cost of
Living area fairway to increase fees and maintain affordability for families Like mine.
PLease heLp in anyway you canto keep this wonderful slice of boat ownership affordable
for peopLe like me and families like mine.
Warmest regards,
David Morse
Lupe Morse
13-188
are less, he disregards the rates because they have not had a rate increase since 2006. Prices are
market driven and I have known people that have moved their boats to other harbors because of
more affordable rates, like those in San Diego.
The appraisal reported in December 26, 2024 by Mr. Netzer does not reflect a good analysis of
what the rental rates should be for the offshore moorings and should not be adopted. I
strongly urge you not to consider this option.
Sincerely yours,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(a-)-qmail.com
13-189
From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please Read: Tonights Offshore Mooring Rates Consideration
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
February 1, 2024
To Newport City Council and Harbor Commission
Re: Meeting to discuss mooring the proposed rental increases
Harbor Master Paul Blank was kind enough to send me the links to the meeting agenda and
supporting attachments to review.
I read through Attachment "D" which is a report from the Harbor Master to the Harbor Commission,
dated January 10 2024. It includes the data from Mr. Netzer's appraisal, dated December 26, 2023.
It appears that Mr. Netzer has used the Ratio Analysis method to build the following table for his
offshore rental recommendations to the Harbor Commission.
ftWW*L 144..
W. bw
18L
A quick review of the Ratio Analysis is to compare the slip rates to the mooring rates for Newport
Beach. I find this comparison flawed. There is no comparison to keeping a boat in a slip as
compared to on a mooring. Before coming to Newport Harbor, I kept my boat in a forty foot slip in
Dana Point for over ten years. I even had live aboard status. To draw an analogy to a slip vs a
mooring; it would be like going camping and staying in an RV vs a tent. The amenities that you pay
for in your rent for a slip are the safety from storms, electricity, water, phone and a storage box with
a full restroorn with hot showers, trash disposal and laundry services, not to mention parking. You
have none of those amenities on a mooring, not to mention having to pay for the bi-annual
maintenance of $1,200 to $1,500 and having to figure a way to get to and from your mooring. So
how can Mr. Netzer make a FAIR comparison of the rent paid for a slip to those of a mooring. It does
not make sense.
In Mr. Netzer's appraisal, he did a Capable Rentals Approach, in which he compared the rental rates
here in Newport for moorings in other harbors. Even though he reports the rates in San Diego, which
13-190
From:
Sherlene Abdelnour <numberonerule@icloud.com>
Sent:
February 01, 2024 3:36 PM
To:
Dept - City Council
Cc:
Sherry Abdelnour
Subject:
A fair and equitable idea
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
This email is in response to the desire of the city Council to raise the mooring rates in Newport Beach
harbor. My years in business as well as personal life, when commercial or personal real estate, rent or
mortgages are to be raised, Social Security, cost -of -living raises in corporations, etc, it's done within
reason. It's a very small percentage, perhaps done annually. This is something a human being can deal
with whether on a fixed income or not. It is truly what is fair and would be may be called the golden rule
in life or some people may say karma. This kind of a hike in our fees, or any fees, is rather questionable.
It's a game changer!
I own mooring B-52 and I've had it for several years. For a few years, a trawler has been on it, and now a
sailboat. I've enjoyed my location very much because I'm right at Balboa Island —a dinghy ride away
from great restaurants and shopping. I've had both mooring and sailboat for sale, because it's more
than I could handle now. I have interested parties. However, that has waned. I think they are looking
into the situation. This hike will make it more than impossible to sell some thing we've invested in. I feel
fortunate that I'm not living on my boat now. Or it might really be a life game changer! I think the
majority of mooring holders, as well as liveaboard's are grateful to enjoy the harbor and have pride in
their boat and have a great camaraderie with other boaters. I'm not saying that's true for all!
I don't understand how this percentage or amount was determined. It's unlike any other hike in history
of any marina from my knowledge. I've been in Marina del Rey and also San Diego. Will this increase or
any other percentage of increase, give us additional public docks to share the space with other dinghies
or pump out stations or a water taxi perhaps?
I'm looking forward to the meeting tonight that the Harbor commission will be listening to comments,
which I hope our positive and not out of line as I've seen at other meetings from some mooring holders!
My request to you is that you reconsider this giant step of an increase. To me it's unfathomable.
And if anyone would answer this question for me, I would appreciate it. It just seems quite coincidental
that the City Council recently approved a multi -million dollar building. Anything to do with the decision
to hike our mooring fees?
Warm regards,
Sherry Abdelnour
Mooring B-52
13-191
Sent from my Whone
13-192
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
McCray <annie@mccrayco.com>
01, 2024 4:08 PM
00000000000000001-larbor Commission; Harbor Feedback;
Dept - City Council
McCray
41�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��ll-Ilt-il-Ilt-il-Ilt-ll-Ilt-11-Ilt�
400400400FW: Harbor Commission - Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear Harbor Commission and City Council Members,
I am writing in protest against the proposed increase in mooring fees by the Harbor Commission. As a
mooring holder of D-56, which has been in my family since 1961, 1 believe the increase is excessive,
unfair and is not supported by a reliable method of appraisal.
My biggest complaint is that Netzer4os appraisal is way off base because the comps he refers are not
comparable at all of an off shore mooring. Specifically:
1) Waterfront Property - It includes comparable 40market rents�o as waterfront property with
docks, which is absolutely ridiculous. This definitely is NOT a fair market rent comp, as the
cost of a waterfront home does not at all compare with an offshore mooring. There is no
access, water, power, or security with an offshore mooring, as there is with a private dock
and there is no value of resale for a mooring holder. Netzer claims in his appraisal, since
llgKhere is no active real estate market for the sale of submerged tidelandsi", yet he
instead makes an assumption that an appraisal of uplands land value (bayfront house)
creates a *benchmark4o land value. This is absurd.
2) Yacht Club mooring - Nor does a Yacht Club mooring, since those clubs provide access
to/from the mooring, maintenance of the moorings (above and below water) and the
additional amenities. I do not believe the city offers Odinghy* docks and/or public docks
where a mooring owner can load/unload, power or clean a boat. The increase in fees by the
Harbor Commission does NOT allow or reflect affordable *access* to the moorings. The
rates a Yacht Clubs charge for a mooring is $10.01 more per linear foot than the existing
$3.34/LF that a 30* mooring can charge. I believe the additional $10 a month barely
13-193
covers its shore boat service, dinghy dock access, power, water, etc. Therefore ' the cost of
those items are included in membership dues and not available to all mooring holders.
3) Rented Slip - Also, a slip is not a comparable rate to a mooring either, as rental of a slip
provides those additional amenities.
Lastly, the information regarding the sale price of moorings, should NOT be included in the appraisal, as
it is irrelevant to the value, especially now since moorings are to be turned over to Harbor Commissioner
in the 2023 Ordinance. This is another reason Netzer#s appraisal misses the target. All mooring
holders should not be punished for the *bad* actions of people who have sold their moorings in the
past.
I do not believe Netzer applied a *realistic* appraisal of the moorings, or seems he was given a
different directive by the Harbor Commission outside the scope of this appraisal.
Therefore, taking the inappropriate comps of Netzer*s appraisal out of the equation, the market price
of moorings along CA coast average from a low of $3.93/LF to $5.95/1-F (see chart below):
COMPRABABLE MOORING PRUCES:
Moon ng Rate
MoonrgRate
MoonrgRate
length
($�LFFJ WGH
AVG
($�LF) LOW
San Diago
1-9�-651
4,92
2,37
Wonteray
12�42'
2,62
5,90
9'17
Morro Say
3Z-60'
M31
5�50
PMar Point
24'm�n
S�a5
Santa Barbara
up to 55;
0�53
Average j �/LF
5�95
1�G
5�68
Additionally, the Harbor Commission has had the ability to increase rates based on CPI increase since
2016, which they have failed to do. If CPI increase had been done on an annual basis, the rates would
be closer to the rates at other harbors (see chart below):
13-194
CPI INCREASE -SINCE 2016. WHICH HARB13REOPAMISSION HAD ABILITY TO RAISE RENT5 OVER PA5T7 YEARS
N8
INCREASED
N3 EMSTMG
RATE
RATE
RATE ($! LF of
CM%
INCLUG�NG
INCREASE BY
30'-70'
INCREASE
CP1 ($ILF)
CPI OF $ILF
MOORiNG1
21317
2,SG%
3,43
0,09
3,34
201B
1B0%
3,56
0,13
3.43
21319
Mo%
3,67
0,11
a'56
2U29
I'Clu%
3,73
O'Gra
3,67
'2021
3,80%
3,38
0,14
3.73
'2022
7A0%
4,15
0,213
3�88
'2023
3,50%
4,31
0,15
4.16
��tff: 1,1"rease TS bo-"ffd O'l cp� �ncrfu_';ff �FOYJO foot mo'�Pa. QS on f"remV
�'75 �ad tii�� opj�o.Tumly but �as NOT dom-, it
On'iy Son &EL-go.,wyr�-1-V j - 5:, �nc�vdej �n r�ncePhvfe F;r� �S 52��;s&ndecr`O;r�d
lifa&-,EO�,b maor�:7g rents at crva��Ub."_- �O UA
The Harbor Commission also has the right to #lease* the mooring, if it is not being used by the
mooring holder, therefore the value does not lie with the mooring holder, and should not be part of an
appraisal. The value of *holding* the mooring does not equate to value of the *access*. If a
mooring holder cannot *rent* their mooring to other boaters, because the Harbor Commissioner has
the right, then the value of what an individual paid for it is not relevant. They do not have the right to
do what they want with their mooring.
Lastly, it appears that the Beacon Bay Bill, that the Harbor Commission refers to as #reason* to
increase mooring fees does not apply to moorings, but only the property in Beacon Bay. It seems the
Harbor Commission is trying to punish mooring holders, instead of supporting a *fair* market value as
prescribed by their duty.
I believe a *fair* market value would be to apply CPI increase going forward and make some
concession for the lack of CPI increase over the past seven (7) years, that was the fault of the Harbor
Commission. Mooring holders should not bear an *unfair* increase due to misinformation by an
appraiser or mismanagement of the moorings.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your service to our city.
Sincerely,
Annie McCray Tingler
Annie McCray Tingler
(714) 540-4058 * work
annie@mccrayco.com
13-195
13-196
From: Charles Bell <charlesbell@gmail-com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 4:20 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve; Dept - City Council
Subject: Offshore Mooring Permit Rental Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
RE: Offshore Mooring Permit Rental Rates
Dear Mayor Will O'Neill, Harbor Commissioner Steve Scully and City Council
I am writing you in hope that Newport Beach will consider maintaining affordable occupied offshore
mooring permittee rental rates by supporting a reasonable rent increase.
My name is Charles Bell, of the Bell Family, permittee of offshore mooring F-20 since 1977. We have
maintained both a family sailboat and now a power boat on the mooring continuously for 46 years. We
are grateful to have been able to afford this recreation here in Newport Beach for our 3 rd generation and
are excited to introduce boating to our 4 th generation at this time.
I believe though there should be consideration given to the fact that the offshore moorings are currently
occupied- not vacant. Increasing rents for existing occupied property deserves an affordable and
reasonable approach to raising rents.
1. The existing permittees are largely longstanding permittees, (tenants) and could be considered
"good tenants" in that the permittees pay their rent on time, and bear 100% of the cost of
maintaining their premises and respectfully adhere to the Harbor rules and regulations.
In response, the Commission in acknowledging the permittees as "good tenants" in good
standing, can make a finding and recommend to the City Council a rent rate increase to be
affordable and reasonable.
2. The Commission can make a finding that annual rental rate, $35.00 per lineal foot established in
2016-17 were appropriate at the time, in 2016, including the annual adjustment at 2% or CPl
whichever is less. Moving ahead the Commission, using the 2016 rental rate and subsequent
increases to date as the base line for proposed new rent rates to be affordable and reasonable.
Therefore, the Commission can find and recommend to the City Council that an annual flat rate
rent increase in the realm of approx. 26%, (3%/year for 8 years, 2016-2024), per lineal foot
would be affordable and reasonable. By example the 2016 annual mooring flat rate of $35.00
per lineal foot increase would be increased in 2024 to $35.00 x 1.24 = $44.33
The current Harbor Commission discussion seems to be centered on the determination of the current
"Fair Market Rent" for offshore moorings. An appraisal has been presented to the Harbor
Commission. The Harbor Commission has responded initially with a "subjective" recommendation for
consideration of an offshore rent amount that is 24% of the amount one may pay for a slip in Balboa
Yacht Basin Marina. The appraisal recommends rent rates from 30-32% of Balboa Yacht Basin Marina
slip rates.
13-197
While this may make sense for one searching the market for a vacant slip or offshore mooring to locate
one's boat, however, I do not believe this approach for rent increase consideration is not appropriate for
occupied offshore mooring permittees.
Thank you for consideration to maintain affordable and reasonable occupied offshore mooring rental
rates.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Bell
Mooring F-20
Charles Bell
charlesbell@gmail.co
949-584-0512
13-198
From: Sandy Manich <sandymanich@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 01, 2024 4:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
hLsafe.
Please stop increasing mooring fees and targeting mooring holders. I am a single woman with masters
degree, six years teaching -work for the saddleback valley school district as a full time teacher AND part
time bartender at Angels stadium. I have a live aboard permit. There is no money for additional mooring
fees at the end of the month- period. Fees already were increased exponentially recently. Please stop
targeting the least able to pay. PLEASEM
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone
13-199
From: Richard Holbrook <rh@richardholbrook.com>
Sent: February 02, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Attachments: mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
13-200
From: Richard Holbrook
Sent: February 02, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Hi -
I have my sailboat on mooring B 121 in Newport Harbor.
I am writing to express my concern and objection to the proposed rate increases.
Mooring permit holders receive no services such as restrooms, showers, shoreboat or other
benefits provided in other marinas in Southern California.
In addition, the rate increase proposed is unfair particularly when comparing the proposed rates
to private piers with similar Tideland permits that remain unaffected.
The proposed 335% increase in my rates is egregiously high and will make moorings
unaffordable for many boat owners.
Thank you,
rmh
Richard Holbrook (design)
288 Chiquita Street
Laguna Beach CA 92651
(626) 676-9084
www.richardholbrook.com
13-201
From: Todd.Talbot <todd.talbot@globeunion.com>
Sent: February 04, 2024 3:07 PM
To: Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission
Subject: Opposition to Mooring Rental Rate Increases
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
I am writing to voice our opposition to the proposed increase on rental rates for moorings.
Unlike the thousands of slips that house boats from boat owners around the Southern California and in
fact the world, we locals who utilize the moorings have these as our only means to enjoy the waters
which we live around, and already pay significant property taxes to support. As many of my fellow local
boaters, being retired and on a fixed income, I find that your biased proposal on moorings may in fact
take away the pleasure that we worked our entire lives to enjoy in these golden years.
The mooring we use gets virtually no benefit from the City: no shore boats, no electrical service nor
areas to wash, fill up water and/or dump waste. All these burdens are on us, with you now proposing to
add to our burden with this added expense. If you step up the cost ... we will be looking for you to figure
out how you are going to step up the service. As a mooring user and Newport Beach resident, I oppose
the proposed rental rate increases for mooring permits.
Todd Talbot
949-726-2241
13-202
From: tomiovenitti@gmaiI.com
Sent: February 06, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring fees
Attachments: Harbor Commission january 2024.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Iink7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
6
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members,
Attached is my written disapproval of the Harbor Commissions appraisal and overview of
the existing mooring evaluation and fee proposal. In my written disapproval I itemize many
different objections and opinions regarding the appraisal utilizing yacht clubs as a
comparable giving value to ways to increase fees to mooring permittees. This email is not
disparaging to anyone specific nor intended to be combative in nature but simply to
express my complete and utter disappointment in the ways which our City is attempting to
impound, repossess or create default for many mooring permittees. It is my intention, to
support any and all means of opposition to this usury fee assessment that could impact so
many residents, including myself a permittee H-210 and visitors. I have been in favor of
finding ways to minimize the area by testing bow to bow mooring designs. I have also been
in favor of many harbor initiatives but this is not one I will support. The commissions
attempt to find ways to support this idea of fee increase is unconscionable and totally usury
in my opinion. The way it has been done annually to date is in compliance with cost of
living increases and should remain reasonable.
As a side comment: Moorings are a historic monument in our Harbor. Newport is a safe
haven for boating where many, not just rich, can enjoy the benefits we provide through this
offshore and onshore mooring permits. I sincerely hope that the City will NOT vote in
agreement to raise the fees and impact the permittees along with the values associated
with those permits.
Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210
13-203
January 29, 2024
Harbor Commission
Harbor Department
City of Newport Beach
CC: Mooring Permittees
CC: Liveaboards
RE: Offshore and Onshore Mooring Fees
The appraisal report by Netzer & Associates uses all the techniques apparent in determining
fair market value of real property. The mathematical, applied principals and compilation
although true for residential and commercial type properties is used in every day review of
real property and not designed to determine water buoys. This MAI assessment of per linear
foot rental can be adjusted subjectively attempting to use those generally accepted methods
of finding value around the math given two components using the Balboa Yacht Club and
Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs rates. In as much as those rates might appear reasonable in
their appraisal, the affordability and management of those mooring fields is not comparable
to other areas within the Newport Harbor mooring system.
With only 1 selected appraiser of 4 that applied, applying subjective mathematics, it is
apparent that the Harbor Commission is reaching for ways to support the rates they are
looking for or at least would prefer to approve through this approach. Housing has become
unaffordable, residential rentals have become unaffordable, fuel and groceries are more
expensive in Newport Beach, insurances more expensive, and now the commission has seen
a potential gold mine of opportunity to place permittees in default.
Some facts to 12onder:
1) Some Permittee owners have been in place for over 50 years.
2) Mooring fields are similar however many are 2 ball systems not swing moorings.
3) Chain Weight and floats are similar.
4) Values and equity are similar.
5) Repairs are the burden of the permittee.
6) Yacht club tenants are rentals not permittees with equity.
Important Facts to consider identified and not identified in Netzer & Associates
Appraisal: (these are not bad items just not compara "Ie
1) Yacht club mooring fields are private members only.
2) Yacht clubs have a waiting list creating supply and demand value.
3) Supply and demand create higher price for members, non -owners.
4) Yacht club mooring fields have members who generally can afford the cost for
XG I'Mr.] 11 Da 110ra
5) Yacht clubs control the mooring fields in their area.
1
13-204
6) Yacht clubs have mooring tender services.
7) Yacht clubs have facilities within the site of each mooring with similar members as
neighbors.
8) Yacht club moorings have no visible unattended or nonfunctioning vessels.
9) The surrounding view is much better.
10)Yacht clubs have parking and common interest with its mooring fields.
1 1)Yacht clubs rent for profit. Permittees cannot rent for profit.
Impact on mooring permittees:
1) Unaffordable to most.
2) Live aboard persons will be impacted severely.
3) Approximately 579 non yacht club offshore moorings impacted.
4) Approximately 80-90% of those S79 will be adjusted unaffordable.
5) Equity will be impacted at rush to sell Permits.
6) Many permittees will default.
7) Unfair with no services, no shuttle.
8) Mooring fields have no low-income or fixed affordable area designations.
a. If identified as comparable to real property then all the ADA and Low Income
and affordability law components need to be addressed. Including Veteran's
Groups who are owners.
Impact and why is anyone's guess?
1) City & departments looking for income to pay for Library meeting halls or other
venues.
2) City & departments looking for money to pay for mooring field reduction and mooring
adjustments to bow -to -bow system presently being reviewed in Mooring Field C.
3) City & departments forces many to sell and or not renew permits. Places a huge
burden on fixed income owners and permittees to sell.
4) Many reasons can be perceived.
Comparable Methods:
Using a waterfront property in comparison cannot be applicable to the appraisal. Waterfront
property with pier and dock provides access and conveniences beyond that of a mooring
field. The one most valuable waterfront benefit is that a home owner with a slip, dock and
pier, have the right, to rent their water space at a rate of 60-$80 dollars a foot therefore
receiving great benefits for that right in excess of the pier head line by the width of the float
or width of the vessel providing encroachment into the common traffic space by up to 20 plus
feet of benefit. Mooring permittees have no rights to rental nor benefits to access but the
burden of all the maintenance with zero services attributed to a homeowner's waterfront
connection. Therefore, the cost, value, comparable, rental, income approach to land facilities
has no commonality.
2
13-205
Summary:
Yacht club members for the most part have the financial capabilities to pay the rates outlined
for the conveniences and location within the yacht club venues. There is a premium for
location. The fees charged are not for ownership of the permit but a pure rental to the yacht
club with the tenant having no permit rights to transferability. It is a waiting list and pure
economic supply and demand issue with yacht clubs having waiting list to the members. Will
the yacht clubs be increasing their rates due to the City and Harbor Departments proposal?
Maybe to $30 per linear foot? Interesting to see their take on the question.
As a matter of interest; At the meeting there were discussions overheard of members, off
microphone by many in attendance, discussing how to deal with the fees proposal as a
sidebar way to raise rates but without comment. It seems the old sales tool of hit um high
and settle them low is in place but still usury in my opinion.
I am not in favor of impacting many with such an egregious increase outlined in the
evaluation. I feel its usury and by the nature of its appraisal subjective even though well
outlined it is not a pure scientific method of approach since the values set by yacht clubs are
not values of ordinary people. It is discriminatory and leads to impacting those who are
grandfathered in, who have been there for years because its reasonable and will now be faced
with no way to maintain their presence in Newport Beach as a boating enthusiast.
Although I am in favor of cleaning up the harbor in ways to eliminate unsightly vessels and
maintain the beauty of Newport Harbor, but to impact 1000 or more people or families like
this is unfair and needs to be cancelled as a Harbor initiative. Reasonable rates are in place
today and updated annually to meet the expectations of the cost of living.
Tom lovenitti
T'OTW Iovenittt/
142 5 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210 Mooring
tomiovenitti@gmail.com
13-206
From: Barbara <barbara.piot4@gmail.com>
Sent: February 12, 2024 9:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve
Subject: The Log Cartoon about mooring increase fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Hello City Council, I am sure you are aware of the Mooring fee increase up to 500%. Many people in our
community feel that this is truly discrimination. It's getting more press and it's making our city look bad.
This came out in the log, I thought you should know.
13-207
ttthelognewspaper 000
This is the Picture of the people who showed up at the last Harbor commission meeting. We will try to
make the next city council meeting February 27, we do not believe the Harbor commission is listening
to the people of our city.
13-208
now
Am
- r--.rj
At,
Nw.
eel,
rwIF,
AL
" 4�w
qw
wool
Iwo; iolsom=mMom
offoppoom
wmwoiommm�ommw
O'sommowwwwasm
moos
an
LX17-
'ro:
Brad Avery, City Counci I Member.
Re: Mooring fee increases
Dear Brad,
Cluistopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
F 11- 6 IK-3 ' 2 4 A � 1 411 -' I -a
RE-TD; -�`J_ITY C'LEERK'Ss OFF14C"
Years ago, in the 1980's I took many sailing classes at OCC and you were my instructor.
Both you and that great sailing program were a strong inspiration for me, and instilled in me a
passion for sailing, the ocean, and particularly Newport Bay, I an-i now in my 70's, and semi-
retired, but that passion that you helped instill deep within me is as strong as ever.
In 1992 1 bought a mooring in "C" section mooring field for my 32 foot wooden sloop. I raced in
as many races as I could find, especially the Tuesday Night Wooden Bout races, sponsored by
Miruicy's restaurant.
In 2006, 1 bought a beautiful Catalina 3 8, S&S design, and I spend much of my time keeping her
in meticulous condition, racing as often as possible and cruising to Catalina several times each
year with my wife and family.
During the time that we have owned the mooring, we have dutifully paid all the fees on time, and
every 2 years kept up with the required maintenance of the mooring equipment. We have been
members of South Shore Yacht Club for 10 years.
My wife, Susan, has been instructor with a Ph. D.at Saddleback College for over 25 years. She
has devoted hey life to the public good, and by helping the lives of young people, has made
Orange County a better place to live.
I am a professional photographer who has worked for many years for the Orange County
Museum of Art, Laguna Museum, nurnerous other Orange County arts institutions, and have
been an active exhibitor at the Laguna Beach Festival of Arts for 30 years.
We both are fully retiring this year and had been planning on spending as much time as possible
on our boat and being involved in sailing and boating activities. Now, it seems that the Harbor
Commission is considering changes that would dash our hopes and plans, along with those of
many of our fellow mooring holders.
If OUr mooring fees are indeed increased by the amounts proposed by the latest figures, which
were presented at the last Harbor Commission meeting, we simply will not be able to arfotd to
keep the boat and mooring. This, of course, presents another dilemma that most people may face:
It may be impossible to sell the boat and mooring, as no one who is not wealthy would be able to
afford the mooring fees. The market for boats on moorings may just dry up, and many people
may be forced to just walk away. Their plans, like our retirement plans, wi It go down the drain.
13-211
It seems outrageous to raise the fees so astronomically, considering that we have no easy access
to the mooring, no parking, no water, no power. and no amenities of any kind whatsoever.
The report that the Harbor Commission got from the Netzer appraisal is deeply flawed. When
using marinas and slips as a source for comparison, it is like comparing a stay at the Ritz Carlton
to camping.
Sailing is the heart and soul of Newport Beach. The images of sailboats on the city logo says as
much. T'his fee increase for mooring holders prices so many people out of the harbor that it will
Id 11 the spirit of sal I ing in Newport. It wil I make it i mpossible for the next, younger generation,
and people new to boating to become involved unless they are very wealthy.
To the people who make up much of our local governance, an increase of a few thousand dollars
may seem I ike mere pocket change.
To most mooring owners, 90% of whom are middle class, such an increase will be a devastating
blow, forcing them out of boating, and out of the harbor altogether.
I am appealing to you, as a sailor, and proponent of our beautiful Newport Bay, to please exert
some influence on your fellow council members, and reject the proposed fee increases for
mooring holders.
Thank you,
Christopher Bliss
13-212
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
13, 2024 2: 10 PIVI
000000000000000OAvery, Brad; Weigand, Erik
City Council; Kleiman, Lauren
40040040OGeneral public comment - non agenda item for Feb 13,
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
ic
Hello City Council
I wanted to bring to your attention about the issue that mooring holders are
facing. Working with the harbor commission but we do not feel we have their attention.
Charging 4 times the rate to people with moorings vs people with home docs for
the same amount of the harbor, and now proposing to charge 10 times more for
people with moorings.
The cartoon was in a newspaper and the City of Newport Beach is looking bad among
the voting residents
13-213
�h L, City of Newp c) rt B ea c 11 & D Iscri rni nation tow@ rd mooring hold ef s
Signs of dtscrimination
Unequal Treatment: Mooring holders feel they are being treated unfairly compared to others in
si mi la r situ at i o n s, su c h as bei ng cha rged hig h e r fees for thei r moo ring. TK s pe rcept i a n of
unequal treatment can lead to feelings of ffustration and injustice.
I nstitutionall Disc r1mination: There's a be] ief am o ng rn oor i ng ho �de rs that th e dity g overn me nt is
systematically discriminating against thern by charging them higher fees. This form of
d fscri mi nati a n is seen as em bedded Withi n the i n stitutiona I f ra m ework of t he city's pe I Jic les a n d
practices.
Lack of Re presentalli o n: Moo ring holders m ay fe e I that th ey la c k ad equate re Prese n1at! a n iT1 the
poll iti ca I sp here, m aking it dfficu It fo r th e m to advocate fo r the� r I Merests and a dd ress issues of
d-i sui mi natic n a n d ii nequal treatment effecbvely.
It's i rn po riant for the Crty to add ress. th ese concerns ser-i ously, as perce ptions of d iscrii m! nation
a n d i nstitutional bi as ca n have sig nificant i rn pi icatio ns f c r t rust i n govern rne nt a nd social
cohesi o n. Op e n di a I ogue, tra ns parency, and efto rts to a dd ress syste mi c i neq ual iti es a re essenti a I
in addressing these issues effectively.
13-214
From: kartbin <kartbin@yahoo.com>
Sent: February 13, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates should be decreased, not increased
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Dear City Council,
• A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
• The rate proposal will result in blatant discrimination against mooring users
• Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more compared to other permits. We
already pay our fair share
• Netzer appraisal is trying to peg mooring rates to full -service marina slips. This is
wrong. Comparing apples to oranges
• The 2023 Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer himself indicated it
was unreliable to peg mooring rates to slip rates.
• Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is little access with no
amenities
• Stop the Money Grab! - Stop the boat tax!. The moorings cost the city little as we
pay our own way. It is simply WRONG to increase rates up to 500%
Mooring rates should decrease, not increase.
Appreciatively,
Linda Miller
13-215
From: Pengalo <pengalo@aol.com>
Sent: February 13, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Scully, Steve; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie; Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy;
Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don
Cc: Newport Mooring Association; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council;
warren.crunk@slc.ca.gov
Subject: Regarding the current proposed Mooring Fee Structure- Please Reject.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Harbor Commissioners and City Staff,
As a 3rd generation member of the Newport Beach community and current shore mooring
permittee, I urge your rejection of the current Netzer appraisal methodology for the many
reasons cited by the Newport Mooring Association, issues raised by other more articulate
residents, and by common sense. To mention a few, my boat does not occupy exclusively a
strip of water from seawall to buoy, and establishing a per -square -foot charge for my
mooring as if it did is ridiculous ... as is basing that per square foot charge on some
permutation of waterfront home values ... as is an arbitrary adjustment of full service marina
dock fees applied to our no -services -limited -access -maintenance -is -all -on -us moorings.
It seems Mr Netzer was charged by the city to develop a "Fair Market Rate" different from
the previous adopted methodology, and he did so, but the current appraisal method and it's
results are inappropriate, unjust, and illogical. The methodology of the original appraisal
process and the adjustment for CPI satisfied the State, more than compensates the City for
minimal costs of administration, and is more reflective of the proportional value of the
moorings compared to private full -service, for -profit commercial marinas and courtesy docks
serving waterfront for -profit businesses. This is unreasonable and opens the city up to the
prospect of potentially costly litigation.
Please do not adopt the current Netzer methodology as the basis for determining the
mooring permit fees.
Thank you!
Peter Leinau
Mooring N-145
5596837408
13-216
From: JOHN and GAY FOTSCH <occoastline@msn.com>
Sent: February 25, 2024 9:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
1EXTERNAL EMATEr=90 I LLRA ImKS or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Get Outlook for iOS
13-217
From: Admin <mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
Sent: February 29, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: NMA Concerns on Fee Increases Including CBRE Appraisal
Attachments: CBRE Appraisal - Offshore Mooring Fields 2024.pdf; NMA - Position on
Offshore Mooring Rate Increase.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
d1h
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We at the Newport Mooring Association ("NMA") would like to keep you
informed, firsthand, of our concerns over the recently suggested massive fee
increases being proposed by some members of the Harbor Commission.
We are sure by now each of you has seen reporting in the Orange County
Register, Channel 7 news, Daily Pilo , Log and other media. We are
concerned that the solicited appraisal that was obtained (Netzer Appraisal) is
wildly inaccurate and is being used to justify stratospheric rate increases; rate
increases we consider to be a tax on persons with moorings and a tax on
boating in Newport Harbor. Attached is a copy of an independent appraisal
done by CB Richard Ellis ("CBRE") that shows that the fair market rates are
approximately what is currently in effect, with modest increases
consistent with the cost of living.
The attached independent appraisal was presented to the Harbor Commission
at its meeting on February 14. The independent appraisal is consistent with
standard methods used by State Lands as well as the method used by
Newport Beach in 2016 when it set rates for all other private uses of the
tidelands, including marinas, restaurants, homeowner associations and
others, for securing and docking boats. The City's 2016 appraisal covering all
other uses is known as the George Hamiton Jones Appraisal and can be
found in the link shown in the attached CBRE appraisal. We urge each of
you to review the attached CBRE appraisal.
We also ask that each of you review again the NMA position paper
previously sent to you which specifically points out major flaws and
13-218
misstatements in the Harbor Commission's solicited appraisal. Just one
obvious example of the flaws in the Netzer Appraisal was that it compared
rates in other harbors that offer moorings together with dinghy docks for
access to moorings, to Newport Beach, which provides moorings only, with no
dedicated dinghy docks for access to the moorings. Having made that
comparison, the Netzer appraisal then fails to account for the $500 to $700
per month cost of obtaining dock space in Newport Beach for a dinghy or
tender available 24/7, to enable mooring permittees access to their offshore
mooring. The rates set by the other harbors are for two things (mooring and
dinghy dock) - not only one thing (mooring).
In addition to major concerns about the solicited and wildly inaccurate Netzer
appraisal we believe that both the current rates, and obviously any significant
increase in rates, discriminate against persons with moorings. This appears
obvious to anyone when comparing what Newport Beach charges for all other
uses of the harbor compared to rates charged to people with moorings, both
historically and now what is being considered.
Attached is also a LINK to the February 14, 2024, Harbor Commission
meeting where mooring holders presented facts showing a clear pattern of
discrimination against persons with moorings, as well as facts showing why
the Netzer appraisal is wildly inaccurate and unreliable. We urge each of you
to take the time to watch and listen to these concerns and consider the facts
firsthand.
As mentioned, the current rates are approximately at market rates, particularly
given the lack of real meaningful access to our moorings. As such, any
significant increase is really a disguised tax on boaters and boating in
Newport Harbor. We urge each of you to stand with us and Stop the Boat
Tax and Stop the Discrimination against persons with moorings.
Respectfully,
The Newport Mooring Association,
Board of Directors
P.S. At the conclusion of the discussion on February 14, the Harbor
Commission Chair suggested they were open to meeting representatives of
the NIVIA to explore common ground. Two days later, we reached out to the
Chair to set up a meeting. We now await a date and time and look forward to
meeting with a few representative members of the Commission well ahead of
13-219
the next Harbor Commission in an effort to collaborate on a potential viable
solution.
Attachments and Links:
2024 CBRE Independent Appraisal of Offshore Mooring Rates in Newport
Harbor
Video of February 14, 2024 Harbor Commission Meeting regarding Offshore
Mooring Rates - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls3fzmtKRDI
NMA position paper regarding Netzer Appraisal and Discrimination in Rates
13-220
CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
APPRAISAL
REPORT
NEWPORT HARBOR OFFSHORE MOORING FIELDS -
TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES
NEWPORT HARBOR
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92662
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.
CBRE
13-221
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.
13-222
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.
13-223
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
F" ZIml=
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-224
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
13-225
Harbor Map
Pump 14 Don't Daup N
r,,, 7)
L/Ad
'l=P0vt Na� A�v
rw.w 10,
P—p—t st.ti
P.bli, D-k
F4N,y CIOSSI"
MAP OF NEWPORT HARBOR AND MOORING FIELDS
City of Newport Beach
5 TA 11
0 ACM
VRNONG
SAS I N
6C,
COA�YT-11
NEWPORT
FASHION
DVNfS
I INDA
Ls
St
HARBOR
fSLAND
Am
,ichcir5ge CO L L iN S ill
i5tAND
NEWPORT
PIER
Newport Harbor is a No -Wake Harbor!
TheSpeedLrmj(is5rnph
Upper and Lower Newport Bay am No Discharge Zones.
Dumping tma ted and un treated boat gewage Is N�ega;
Warningi Underwater subm"od Unas -
Do not cross through mooring area�.
Harbor Related Contact Informatlom
Cj�
A
A
SALOCA SALI59A 91,V E
Clly of Nawport Beach Harbor Mastar, 949-270-8159 1—argoncy: Gajj 9-1-1
or VH F Radio Channel I 9A
Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrali 949-723-1002 or VHF Radio Ch. 16 Hoag Hospital; M-7e4-024 W F,
Beach Lifequarciz 949-644-aO47 Sea Tow: 562-592-2806 or VHF Ch. 16 x
".1.W.por,1L Bh Fire D.jprjnt: q4q-1344-�511 p, 911 TowFoal US! 949-27J3-3207 or VHF Ch- 10 +
24 Hr- Crime Tip Hot Line: 800-55"273 THF
U�; Coast Guard- M0-521 -50DO or VHF Radio Charir�l 16 off shure WEDGE M
Oil Ch.-il.ndS ... ge Spill. Newport Beach Weather. 949-675-G503 0 OAS a 6
Call Both IN . rrb.rg V1116a
Califorkiia Office of Emergency Response; (SM) OILS911 (645-7911) ml, - 1.302 r-t
Nationa I Re%poose Center: (800) 424-88,02
NqwpW Dunes Launch Ramp Info: Mtp:ilwww.dbw.ca.qoylBoafinqFacil�iesiDetailsf997
9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
VC
CORONA
13-226
Moorina Field A from west
Mooring Field C from west
Moorinq Field B from west
Moorina Field A from east
Moorinq 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.
Ir :1�1=
13-228
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
iv
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-229
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.
13-230
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
13-231
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
13-232
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
Viii
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-233
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.
13-234
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.
K
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
F, :1�1=
13-235
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
13-236
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:
4
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
r =1�1=
13-237
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
13-238
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
13-239
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.
L Im
A =1 �1
13-240
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.
13-241
Neighborhood Analysis
Neighborhood Analysis
NINC
040,
N 0, H
Rd
Newport gay
N.ewport NEWPORT
Beach
CENTER
BALBOA
ISLANO
'k
emcipbox 0 MaphoxQ OpenStrerd 1 1:
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
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
F, :1�1=
13-242
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.
I C
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-243
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
it
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-244
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
12
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-245
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
13-246
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 pandemic 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
13-247
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
13-248
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.
16
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-249
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
13-250
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:
I E
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-251
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
13-252
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.
2C
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-253
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
13-254
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
13-255
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.
23
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-256
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.
24
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-257
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
13-258
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
13-259
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.
27
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-260
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.
2E
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-261
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
13-262
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
3C
D 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-263
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
31
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-264
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.
32
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
CBRE
13-265
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
13-266
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
13-267
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
13-268
Addenda
ADDENDA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-269
Addenda
Ad&
GENERAL DATA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-270
I
A ST
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 0
r 233 224 1
.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
00 200 400
Feet
m 0
ooring A
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
R
�23'1
AIR,
AQC,
D
71
Remnsula
PFF
100 400
mm,6��
Feet
m
V A Rai
-Al
I
7
PyrM.r%7q
F-j" 'F
A
Mooring A
City of Newport Beach
GIS D vision
March 216, 2015
MooringsA.mxd 13-272
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
19
W
=06m�
le F,eeot '00
4";
L 6 -
A
;AjjA r
A-�
0 L�
-�4
Mooring B
B, G
,AYL
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 25, 2015
/15-Z/14
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 1
13-276
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
I -fts� —lift 7�7' r
0
,Skl--.M.%Vl -. — k k , - — '* '. --
?t
le
v,
V
B I
$mom
L I'm
I low
15o 1k:
=16m�
Feet
Mooring D
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
MooringsD.mxd
/15-Z/O
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
WOF&INA
� 0 100 200
=16m�
Feet
&4 -v;rw. I A. I )v
0
Mr.
Nf
P I"
fell
vi
2hp
%tv-
Ok
L
r 4, 0 4-4
Mooring G
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
/ 15-ZO I
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
F.,'
0"
Arm
2
ou;
ete ns .:4 W,-r;
- I
125 250 ofia I
Feet
Mooring H
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
Mooringsti—d
WOF&A
,4C 1�1
V)
01
EITM--
121 21.
00
Feet lff�
uj
z
0
K a,
------------
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,
44
0 %
7
0. L--W.
I
B I
.A
- --jVF4,
qlllmmRmi&-- A. Marina
�'W'terans
Park
Mooring J
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
113-ZOO
Addenda
Addendum
APPRAISER LICENSE
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-287
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
ROBERT Z. JACOBSON, MAI
Executive Vice President
Valuation and Advisory Services
Cell. + 1909 227 2386
robe rt. loco bson@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
13-288
CBRE
0 too
Businessl Consumer Services & Housing Agency
BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
4k 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
aA* &0' 7Z�&-
Angela Jemn(��, Bureau Chief, BREA
Newport Mooring Association
Objection to Proposed Offshore Mooring Fee Increase
Date: January 31, 2024
To: The Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Reference: February 1, Study Session on Offshore Mooring Rates
The Newport Mooring Association strongly objects to the furtherance of DISCRIMIATION
against mooring holders in Newport Harbor. In a separate position paper, the Newport Mooring
Association will show the history of systematic 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 outlined in Exhibit 5 below. Mooring
Holders already pay far more to the 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 people of low income and who may be outsiders
out of the harbor. Make no mistake, the weaponization of the Appraisal Hammer is just a further
attack on mooring holders which appears to be part of an on -going war 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 more, so that the gap would be up
to 10 times more than what private dock owners pay, and over 5 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 last 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 study session 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 for failure of proper notice to the public.
13-290
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 contradicts 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 less than 90 days to allow the
Commission, Staff, and the Stakeholders to provide input on any proposal to rase 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 of
the City, and the unique values of properties, are all uniquely connected with 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 only in the
harbor 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
13-291
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, and some non-commercial uses. Uses not
covered were call "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 40ft. offshore
mooring would be $948.60 per year (1 020sq.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 (i.e., the various Newport large marinas, small marinas,
restaurant docks, shipyards, and 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 be clearly a discrimination that
cannot be justified in any manner. Further such an 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
discriminate, in addition to the many other ways mooring holders are treated unequally, this
3
13-292
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, only relates 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 recreation uses in the 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 (SLC), 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 citywide discretion
in determining the best methodology in determining fair and reasonable rents for
moorings. Moreover, in the Tomales Bay Mooring Valuation Report (Exhibit 4), just
one year ago, SLC has used a totally different methodology, a methodology
4
13-293
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, and should 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, ignoring 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
13-294
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,
- I ack of dedicated parking,
- I ack 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 to 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 only pay 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 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 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
M
13-295
exclusively used by the marina to establish a yearly fee per square foot of tidelands used. This
46value per square foot" is then used for other uses. The City of Newport Beach followed this
standard method for virtually all uses in the Harbor in the 2016 George Hamilton Jones Reports
with yearly increases which 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 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 rates are for only one of these two things. The use
of a small amount of tidelands but 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 for a ratio in Newport Beach
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 slips and Newport 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 only increase marginally on a square foot basis.
Comparing the square foot 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:
40 foot mooring (allowing for extra distance to each buoy and the buoy itself = (40+28) x 15
(beam) = 1020 sq ft.
7
13-296
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, 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 which
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 rents 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.
The Stop the Dock Tax cry will likely be heard again by homeowners with docks, if subjected
to such an increase.
93
13-297
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, and the
important of current and future boating and sailing in Newport Harbor, and given the
extraordinary proposed increase in fees, and given what appears to be a proposal that clearly
discriminates in use rates, and a clear violation of the Beacon Bay Bill, and given 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 less than 90 days to allow the Commission,
staff, and the stakeholders to provide input on any proposal to rase rates for the offshore
recreational moorings.
Newport Mooring Association,
Approved by the Board of Directors
W
13-298
EXHIBITS
10
13-299
Exhibit 1 — Relevant Sections of the Beacon Bay Bill
Ch. 3171 STATUTES OF 1997 CHAPTER 317
An act to amend Sections I and 2 of Chapter 74 of, 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. Th ere is hereby granted to the City of Newport Beach and its successors all of the
right, title, and interest of the Stat e of California held by the stat e by virtu e 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 us es and purposes and upon
the following express conditions:
(a) Th elands 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 stat e and
the reestablishment of the natural stat e of the lands so that they may serve as ecological units for
scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and
marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area.
11
13-300
(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 h eld by the state and with the us es
specified in this section.
(c) Th elands 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.
M There is hereby reserved to the people of the state the right to fish in the waters on the
elands 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. Th e form of such leases and the rang e of consideration to be
12
13-301
received by the city shall be approved by the Stat e Lands Commission prior to the issuance
of any such lease. All money received by the city from existing and future leas es of those lots
shall be deposited in the city tideland trust funds as provided in Section 2.
13
13-302
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
13-303
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 wfLich 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 mi ensuring that the lessee of such
property operates the activities conducted on 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
13-304
Exhibit 4 - Tornales 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 1 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
13-305
and the type of vessel (powerboat or sailboat). The publication can be requested from
the Department of Boating and Waterways here.
Category 1 Tomales Bay Benchmarks
The Commission has been using the Tomales Bay benchmarks since 2010. 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 were 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 were 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
13-306
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, 2019).
PROPOSED BUOYS BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE = $1401BUOY
The table below summarizes the comparison between the 2015 and 2020 benchmark rates (Note
by NNU — 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:llslcprdwordpressstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpressdatal202O/l2/l2-l7�
20 28.pdf
18
13-307
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 were readily available that provided access to
offshore moorings. Over time the shore moorings were transferred to people who
did not have offshore moorings which 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 dingy 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 off -shore 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 pen -nit holder is required to maintain its buoy and equipment, so other
than collecting fees and inquiring about boat insurance and other contact
19
13-308
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,
access to friend's docks 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 terms 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 which appears to be 200 long to tie up for
use of boaters going to the restaurant at Marina Park 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 of a motorized 9 to 10 foot
dinghy for access to moorings (one 40 foot boat slip equals 8 in -water dingy
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, taken to the water to row out to a mooring, if the
mooring holder is able enough to do so. These are nothing like real access 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 a Mooring
Compared to What is Charged for All Other Uses.
For the same amount of tidelands used by an offshore mooring, the City charges
homeowners with docks 1/4what it charges for an individual mooring. In addition,
an offshore mooring 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 docks pay, and 5 to 10
times more than what commercial users pay for the same amount of space. Put
20
13-309
another way, the other uses are charged far less for the use of the same amount 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 it 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 far less than the annual fees set for mooring permit
holders. Calculating rates based on the square foot 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 mooring
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 for
the City of Newport Beach charges5 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 Onto and Off Moorings, while Proposing to
Increase Space for Boats on Homeowner Docks. Currently before the Costal
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 who have
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 myself 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.
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
21
13-310
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 is allowed to rent out an
offshore mooring dock and collect a fee, they do not allow for the rental of similar
tidelands used by homeowners, restaurants and others. The two uses are being
treated differently, especially without any compensation to the mooring holders
who paying their fee to the City for use of the tidelands when the mooring is not
being used and rented to others, the City continues to collect the permit holder's
fee and collects a fee from the visitor who's boat is tied to the mooring, and tied to
the mooring hardware owned by the mooring permit holder (not by the City),
including use of the buoy, chains and tackle owned 100% by the mooring pen -nit
holder. Not one penny is being reimbursed to the mooring holder who is and has
been paying the fee for the use of the tidelands - the same tidelands the City is
renting out to others.
This is not only a clear act of discrimination in the management of the tidelands, it
is intentionally designed to keep mooring unoccupied. As noted below, at any
given time there are 100 or more offshore mooring vacant for periods in excess of
30 days, and often for months and years.
8. Claiming that the City is Attempting to Increase Access While Killing
Access to the 100 Empty Moorings. According to the Harbor Commissioner, 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 so high that most boaters are priced out of the market, putting
rates as high as the cost of having a boat on a slip at a neighboring harbor.
The City has suggested that one reason for the vacancy is that they cannot offer a
3� 6, or 12 month lease, and that discourages the use of these 100 moorings. They
claim that they cannot offer these longer -term leases because the mooring holder
22
13-311
has the right to put a boat on the mooring at any time, so the would-be long-term
lessee is not interested if he or she 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 can find out 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 Commission in public stakeholder meetings, the Newport
Mooring Association has proposed that the City ask vacant mooring holders if they
would agree not to 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 the obvious solution, the Harbor Commission never even studied
the proposal. This suggests that it is more important for the City to keep the water
free of boats on moorings, and enhance some homeowner's harbor views, than it is
to actually provide additional public use of these empty moorings.
Simply put, by over -charging for these 100 moorings, in addition to the other acts
and omissions noted above, the City has shown a systematic attempt to keep
moorings vacant and though 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, 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
23
13-312
private docks and persons who rent expensive slip space for their yachts. When
one combines the significant overcharges and discrimination charges now in
existence, and the radical proposed increases further that discrimination, in
addition to the many other ways mooring holders are treated equally, 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.
Even more concerning, without have 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 and the City should double down on such
policies.
24
13-313
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
with navigation and where shore aucess. 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 tise 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.
11" SIreed boat launch i�nduuishore moorngs
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, new construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, cleanfng,
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 rot have to be on the water have moved to inland locations.
Those that are more water dependent have been involved in land use conflicts Wth
res�dential 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
lard use conflicts, However, additional strategies and incentives may be necessary
to protect these facilities.
Loral Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3-36
25
13-314
From: Sandy Manich <sanclyrnanich@yahoo.corn>
Sent: March 14, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: faulty appraisal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Please stop the discriminatory practices in Newport Beach against Mooring holders,
especially those that are legal live aboard residents of Newport Beach! You are
supposed to be representing USH!
Sandy Manich
Licensed, clear credential California Teacher since 2016
13-315
From:
John Rogers <jrogers@synergydr.com>
Sent:
March 14,2024 2:48 PM
To:
Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council
Cc:
Bill Seals; Duley John
Subject:
Mooring fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
How are you all? Can you tell me what's up with the mooring situation and trying to increase the fees
dramatically? If so do you know who ordered the increase/why/what isthere plan to do with the
money?
I have asked these questions from members of the harbor commission for several years and have not
had any response to my questions?
What persons or persons order the increase or proposed it?
Is the City out of money?
And just exactly how would they spend the money - they must certainly have a plan and budget?
How does the increase make the boating more accessible to Residents and Californians?
Simple questions from a simple businessman and resident for over 60 years!
I look forward to your response!
Respectfully ,
John Rogers
Synergy Direct Response
130 E. Alton Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-824-3780
13-316
From: todd hill <todd.happydolphin@gmail.com>
Sent: March 14, 2024 7:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
LEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Bad show. How can you possibly justify such a huge jump in charges? There has been nothing more
provided to justify any increase.
Many boats have already left the harbor. PHRIF racing is all but dead in this harbor. An increase like that
won't make it any better. You may get some $ now but tomorrow it could be gone. What is there to stay
for?
13-317
From: Claire Cordell <mrsclairecordell@gmail.com>
Sent: March 15, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate hikes.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Good grief. 500% increase is completely unfair! Mine is a little shire mooring. A 500% is going to be a
real burden for me. I can see a small hike to keep up with everything else but not 500%!!
Please please no. We are all getting taxed to death as it is and now this. Who in heavens name think this
was a good idea?
Please do not do this to us.
Sincerely, Claire Cordell
13-318
From: Cheryl <cheryl @gbfe nterp rises. com>
Sent: March 15, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Cc: Dept - City Council; Scully, Steve; Blank, Paul; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie;
Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy; Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don
Subject: Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe. A
Hi Joe - We live on the peninsula and have had a sailboat on a mooring for over 25 years. We are
asking for your help with the mooring rate hikes the Harbor Committee is proposing. The NMA
position is laid out below . We have read the Netzer appraisal which even to our non-professional
appraisor eyes has many flaws and errors. The CBRE appraisal offered as a counter is much more in
line with the facts and with traditional methods . We sincerely hope you will take the time to carefully
consider all the facts and agree that the Netzer appraisal is seriously flawed and that the rates they
propose are insupportable by any standard. We will be attending the Harbor Committee meeting on
March 18 to voice our support for the NMA position. We hope that when the matter reaches City
Council you also will support the NMA position . Thank you for your consideration.
Keith and Cheryl Garrison
311 Island Avenue
Mooring A-240
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Newport Mooring Association News
Date:Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:Newport Mooring Association <mail@ newportmooringassociation.org>
Reply-To:mail@newportmooringassociation.org
To:chervl@gbfenterprises.com
Newport Mooring
Association
, i i I "�'_ - - I 'I',
Harbor Council Special Meeting Notice
13-319
March 18th at 5:00 prn
City Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA
This the final Harbor Committee meeting on the subject of the rate hike. They
will vote on their recommendation to City Council. We need your attendance.
Stand together, show your support, and make your voice heard
13-320
KL--.".
ft� U�5 - fkN vs HC �Mmff&cp
1(ury lRoommimWon
goam
Iflum
Amm
'UM
41W
�T
13-321
Read More
Join us at the Civic Center on Monday at 5:00 PM to stand with fellow
mooring holders & residents of Orange County. The Harbor Commission is
recommending a significant increase of 500% for all mooring holders,
including On -Shore Moorings. Don't let this happen without having your voice
heard. Come together in support.
The Harbor Commission is not recognizing the CBRE appraisal, provided by
the NMA, and has doubled down on the severely flawed Netzer appraisal
READ NMA Position CBRE Appraisal
Talking Points to Keep in mind - When Emailing
A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more
compared to other permits. We already pay our fair
share
Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service
marina slips. Apples to oranges comparison
The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal,
Netzer himself indicated it was unreliable to peg
mooring rates to slip rates.
Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since
there is little access with no amenities
It's time for the City of Newport Beach to address the
long-standing discrimination & faulty Netzar appraisal
faced by Mooring Holders
13-322
I -AA
Click here to email City Council
ewport Mooring
Association
Become a member of NMA
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org
13-323
Newport Mooring Association I P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Unsubscribe cheryl@)qbfenterprises.com
Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by mail@newportmooringassociation.org powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
13-324
From: Phillip La Plante <phi I lip@ pacif iccoastinvestments.biz>
Sent: March 15, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links 7 attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
L
Dear members of the Newport Beach City Council:
I have been a resident of Balboa Island since 1964. My father acquired both an onshore and an offshore
mooring in the mid '60's and my family still owns those moorings to this day. We have enjoyed
relatively affordable boating for over 5 decades as a result. I have been following the debate over the
proposed mooring rate increase and in fact was a classmate of the appraiser Jim Netzer at Corona del
Mar high school.
I want to go on record as OPPOSING THIS RATE INCREASE. The proposed rate increase of up to 500% is
simply not fair or reasonable. The Newport Mooring Association has conducted their own appraisal and
come up with a far lower valuation by a highly reputable appraisal company. With all due respect to my
classmate Jim, CBRE, the largest real estate company in the world, is way more qualified and has more
credibility than Jim does as a solo practitioner. Having been in the real estate business for over 35 years,
I can assure you that appraisals are highly subjective and can vary greatly. Among the flaws in the
Netzer appraisal is the fact that he equates moorings with docks, which is absurd. A dock provides
convenient access to your boat as well as water and power. This is an apples to oranges comparison. A
mooring owner must also periodically maintain the cans and chains.
A goal of the California Coastal Commission is to provide affordable access to the public to the beaches
and waterways of the state. This proposed rate increase does just the opposite. For many, this
proposed rate increase is simply unafforclable, and will force them to find other options or force them to
sell their boats. My father was not a wealthy man. He was a retired Naval officer with a pension when
we moved to Newport. He would surely be outraged at such a dramatic rate increase if he were still
alive. I urge you to vote NO on this proposal, or at the very least CONTINUE THIS ITEM so that the
merits of the CBRE appraisal can be considered. In the real estate business, there is a process called
baseball arbitration. This is when two parties who disagree on a valuation each hire an appraiser. The
parties then agree to hire a 3rd appraiser. The two closest appraisals are then averaged, and the other
appraisal is thrown out. This process provides incentive to come up with a reasonable number for fear
of their appraisal being thrown out. Perhaps something along these lines could be considered. Just
accepting only one appraisal that is flawed is not fair or good governance.
One thing I can promise you is that the mooring holders such as me who are also voters in this city will
be watching this matter closely. Anyone who votes for this outrageous fee increase will be making a
large constituent of voters very unhappy and will vote accordingly.
Respectfully,
13-325
Phillip La Plante
Pacific Coast I nvestments
220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P 949.378.7740
E phillip@pacificcoastinvestments.biz
ATHINK GREEN ... Please consider the environment before printing this email
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This electronic mail message, all related responses and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named
above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an
intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in
error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone and delete all copies from your system.
13-326
From: David Gubser <davegu bser@ road run ner.com>
Sent: March 15, 2024 5:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Harbor Commission Rate Proposal Changes
��WICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Council Members
This commission is far out of reach in the name of improving and maintaining recreation boating in
our beautiful harbor. They only have an agenda of pricing the average on -shore and off shore
mooring out of existence for the average child or young family. Their analysis of fair and equitabLe
rates are seriously flawed and do not stand up to simiLar rate structures for like services along the
west or eastern seaboard marinas. If their pLanned recommend rate increases are put in place by
your Council family recreational. boating wiLL never be the same. Monies gained by this well heated
city treasury wiLL be further fattened for more nonsense projects like the multi-miLLion dollar
pLanned Lecture haLL to boost the egos of the Newport elite. Remember this is Newport Beach and
Newport Harbor around which the city and boating community was built. Now you want to
restructure it for the rich and famous mega -yachts. Please preserve it's future and do not destroy
recreational boating.
These appointees on the Commission are not even boaters ruling without listening to the boating
community input and cancelling their very existence in the future.
Dave Gubser — Resident and mooring owner (unless the changes go forward)
13-327
From: Adam Miller <ajgm@hey.com>
Sent: March 16, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please don't raise the morning rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
I'm already pretty upset about how you're treating the Newport Island entrance improvement. My
taxes on my 1 condo over five years couLd pay for the whole thing and yet you can't find the money
out of 140 properties to pay for it. And now you're going to muLtiply my mooring price by 5X. Crazy!
PLease don't.
Thanks,
Adam MiLLer
Newport Island Resident/Owner
13-328
From: Claire Cordell <mrsclairecordell@gmail.com>
Sent: March 16,2024 7:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Shore moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
I am shocked. 500% is absolutely horrible! You do not have to do anything so it's not like u work on
them or something. The prices of everything are hurting all of us and now this. We haul them out do all
the work in them so why pay u for it?
Claire Cordell P-64
13-329
From: Phil Rodas <prodasl23@gmail.com>
Sent: March 16, 2024 8:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding Proposed Shore Mooring Price Increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear Newport Beach City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
increase in shore mooring prices within Newport Beach. Such a rate hike, which could potentially reach
up to 500%, is not only unfair but also highly unreasonable. As a mooring permit holder, I believe it is
crucial to highlight several key points that demonstrate why this proposed increase should not be
implemented.
Firstly, mooring permit holders are already paying significantly more compared to holders of other
permits. In fact, our fees are approximately four times higher than those for other permits. This
indicates that we are already paying our fair share and should not be subjected to such exorbitant
increases.
Additionally, the Netzer appraisal, which is being used to justify these price hikes, is based on a flawed
comparison. The appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina slips, which is essentially comparing
apples to oranges. This approach does not accurately reflect the unique nature of mooring permits and
the services (or lack thereof) that come with them.
It is important to note that even Netzer himself acknowledged the unreliability of pegging mooring rates
to slip rates in a previous appraisal conducted in 2016. This further underscores the flawed basis on
which the proposed rate increases are being justified.
Moreover, mooring permit holders experience limited access and lack amenities that are typically
associated with full -service marina slips. Given these limitations, mooring rates should actually be
heavily discounted rather than increased.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to reconsider the proposed shore mooring price increase. Such a
drastic hike is not only unfair to mooring permit holders but also lacks a valid basis in terms of
comparison and justification. I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that you will make the
right decision for all stakeholders involved.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Phillip Rodas
Shore Mooring owner
13-330
From: Brian Fluhr <bfluhr@gmail.com>
Sent: March 16, 2024 9:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring fee increase. Unacceptable
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello
I understand the need to increase fees in line with the increased cost of living and property
values However, this should be a stepped increase, and not a outrageous increase A stepped increase
should be about 5 to 10% could be yearly but what is being proposed and talked about is not acceptable
it would not be acceptable property tax it would not be acceptable in school tuition. It would not be
acceptable in health rates. It would not be acceptable in insurance rates just because these are boats.
These are moorings, and these are people who are seem to have money so that they can support these
boats and Moorings is not acceptable people should be treated fairly and that's who we are. We are
people treatment in massively increasing expenditures is not acceptable. Not all of us are wealthy some
of us, including me are lucky enough to have a small piece of a shore morning and Do not want to be
taken advantage of when this is just simply a way to escape and enjoy the water of our community.
Please stop this increased, and make it reasonable you must increase.
Best,
Brian Fluhr
714.371.7493
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianfluhr/
Want to meet? Book a time.
13-331
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ludgate <kiwipaulludgate@gmail.com>
arch 17, 2024 8:31 AM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
&.-, k e, a W, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Could someone please explain the logic behind d this proposal you have put forth ?
The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated
Paul
13-332
Mayor - Wiliam O'Neill
wo n e 11 l@ n ewop rtbeachca. g ov
City Council
citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
A
a
Baal LMWM "we Mow I mrs
Exi-511mg
Amium Pm-prm It Fj*
JApptoximata�
35ft
$1,403
40ft
$1,603
45ft
$1,804
50ft
$2,004
60f(
$2P405
70ft
$2P806
Sent from my iPhone
C
D
E
PhIVA10 P4*tfj6U.0
PFIV.Itd MkP-OFIFPK
PFw0td".*wft P*Perrnadr
EwhstIOCRAR
PPft0Q4qd
p1d"010d PCw f4twoKs
Xn n u A Piptynil F*.b
Aprupal
pon4multo
JA,ppieximjte�
Po r M it F L-,,
Pnc:*-3-t*
$309
$4,292
2 06%
$317
$5,770
260%
$311
$6,642
268%
$450
$8.724
33,5% Ptptrw4w
$534
$12,211
509% Rpuwmi
S617
$14.935
432% ppraiai
rha ci), "Mr) diplrs�*d
Prom exhlb!* D on *.hp
K.C. AgWrL03 j1ji)Q4
13-333
From: Chris Bliss <chrisbliss@cox.net>
Sent: March 17, 2024 8:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Forcing mooring holders out of the harbor is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Your own council member already said the city would be "SLUMLORDS" for raising rates so unreasonably
high. (OC Register 2016).
Doing do will cement this SLUMLORD title in stone. This will be your legacy.
PLEASE, don't approve this astronomical rate increaseM
Christopher Bliss
Bliss Photography
949-887-9737
www.NewYorkPictures.com
Sent from my IPad
13-334
From: Cliff Auerswald <cliff @allreverse.com>
Sent: March 17, 2024 10:12 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fwd: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a
$40,000 increase over 10 years
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links 7 attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Hello
My shore mooring is W51 back on Newport island. Are we subject to these potential rate hikes?
Cliff Auerswald, President All Reverse Mortgage, Inc. (ARLO"') Toll Free (800) 565-1722 1 Direct (714)
385-9803 Celebrating 18 Years of Excellence A+ Rated 131313 (5-Stars) HUD Approved Lender ID #26031-
0007 N M LS #14041
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Branson <.mike@allreverse.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 8:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a $40,000 increase
over 10 years
To: Cliff Auerswald <cliff @allreverse.com>
I would definitely attend if I was there. This would make our moorings worthless and actually a burden!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Newport Mooring Association <mail @newportmooringassociation.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM
Subject: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a $40,000 increase over 10
years
To: <mike@allreverse.com>
Newport Mooring
,;i . �:, Association
13-335
Shore Moorings
now included in the Rate Hike!
Monday, March 18th at 5:00 pm
City Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Drive, New_port Beach, CA
Now on the agenda for Monday's Special Harbor Commission meeting
is a recommendation for an increase on shore mooring rates. We do
not know what their recommendation will be, however in the most
recent staff report, they attached a document from 2022 which
proposed the following rate increase. We need you to show up on
Monday
7" 2
Rtcommended Onshofe Mooring RenW Rates
(MOnNy Rale per Linear Foot)
Recommended Rates
Phase 1. Phm 2:
July 2022 January 2023
Current Ron
$A-F
ZQ22 Rent
$1LF
$1.58
$1.61
510.00
$&DO
M
Read More
If the above chart is their recommendation, then that is a 10
times increase on what shore mooring folks are paying. In
effect, that's a tax on people with shore moorings of about
$40,000 over a ten year period and double that over 20 years.
13-336
Since any increase needs an appraisal, the Harbor Commission
is using the now outdated Dec 2021 appraisal which is almost 2
1/2 years old, and which was presented to the former Harbor
Commission. Attached is a summary of the staff report from
January 2022 following the Netzer Appraisal.
We all thought this was put to bed with the former Harbor
Commission. The recent Harbor Commission agenda for
January, 2024 only referenced the offshore moorings, and the
only Netzer appraisal that has been under review and
discussion for the last 2 months has been the appraisal for the
offshore moorings.
However it appears that over the last month or two, without
sending out notice to the shore mooring permit holders, the
Harbor Commission has attempted to sneak in a massive
increase in onshore moorings rates without a single stakeholder
meeting and without any attempt to provide actual notice to
these stakeholders to allow them to present relevant
information to this new commission.
All shore mooring permit owners, and their families need to
attend the meeting on Monday, March 18 and let their voices be
heard.
Join us at the Civic Center on Monday at 5:00 PM to stand with fellow
mooring holders & residents of Orange County. The Harbor Commission is
recommending a significant increase of 500% for all mooring holders,
including On -Shore Moorings. Don't let this happen without having your voice
heard. Come together in support.
The Harbor Commission is not recognizing the CBRE appraisal, provided by
the NMA, and has doubled down on the severely flawed Netzer appraisal
READ NIVIA Position CBRE Appraisal
Talking Points to Keep in mind - When Emailing
13-337
• A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
• Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more
compared to other permits. We already pay our fair share
• Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina
slips. Apples to oranges comparison
• The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer
himself indicated it was unreliable to peg mooring rates to
slip rates.
• Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is
little access with no amenities
It's time for the City of Newport Beach to address the
long-standing discrimination & faulty Netzar appraisal
faced by Mooring Holders
O�O
Click here to email City Council
HOME OLDER NEWS MEMBERSHIP CONTACT US
13-338
Newport Mooring
Association
Become a member of NMA
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Contact us at aii(cunewportmooringassociation.org
Newport Mooring Association I P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Unsubscribe mike0allreverse.com
Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by mail@newportmooringassociation.org powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
13-339
From: Michael Romo <mikeromomg@gmail.com>
Sent: March 17, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Unfair and exorbitant on -shore mooring rate increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
It is clear the City Council sees an opportunity to take advantage of on -shore mooring users with the
proposed unfair and exorbitant on -shore mooring rate increase, knowing this action is being taken with
no notice or supporting rationale. Users such as myself are willing pay to keep on -shore moorings
maintained at our own expense; we get nothing from the City for our trouble. By maintaining our on-
shore moorings we add to the nautical appeal of the Harbor when our watercraft are on the moorings.
If you drastically increase the fee per square foot, you will encourage mooring users to shorten their
mooring lines. This will detract from the traditional appealing look of watercraft on on -shore mooring
that has been a feature Balboa Island and other parts of Newport Harbor for generations. Shorter
mooring lines will impede swimmers and make the beaches unsightly. But what other recourse will on-
shore mooring users have if the rate is is increased 20x what it is now other than to shorten their
mooring lines?
This is a bad idea and you know it. Find some other way to collect revenue.
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomq(cD_qmaiI.com
c: (415) 509-8304
13-340
From: Ronald Costabile <rwcostabile@gmail.com>
Sent: March 17, 2024 10:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: What my boat means to me.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
I'm 74 years old and have had a half dozen boats in my lifetime. I've lived in Newport since 1995 and
after 10 years here, I decided I should have a boat in the harbor. I researched and decided it would be
worthwhile, considering the economy and my retirement income. Considering the system, it was
justified for me too go ahead and purchase a mooring permit. I agree with reasonable yearly increases
that might keep up with CPI and other costs to support a vibrant Harbor. But now the City of Newport
Beach has decided to rip the middle class into submission and jack up morning permit fees, and I know
what the city is trying to do. The expression "if the government doesn't control it we can't have it",
that's is what's happening here. It's undeniable. I bought a offshore morning and an onshore morning so
I could have access. I paid $50,000 of my hard-earned saved lifetime savings knowing that when I no
longer wanted to have a sailboat, I could trade the mooring and recover my investment and continue my
retirement into my golden years. I know, and you know, and many others believe what the city is trying
to do is to make the transferability nearly worthless which would give the city more control and power,
and the ability to implement a plan to take over all financial avenues of transferability. I would not be
able to afford any of this if fees increase beyond what is fair for the general boating public. The
proposals that have been made are outrageous and cannot be supported by at least 75% of the boaters
in our Harbor. I love to sail and I love the ocean and being able to do this is part of the American dream.
I do not own a home but I own a boat and you will take this away from me because I will not be no
longer be able to afford to live this dream. The Netzler appraisal is not reality. It needs to be redressed
and fairness needs to be the priority.
Thankyou
Mr Ronald Costabile
Mooring permittee owner. A285 and E12.
13-341
From: yaneav cohen <yaneavcohen@yahoo.com>
Sent: March 18, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Hike
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City of Newport Beach City council members
The proposed rate hike for the Newport Beach Harbor is inappropriate. The very fact that there is a
hearing to consider such dramatic changes is unacceptable and goes against the very origin of the history
of Newport Beach and the way Newport Beach was founded. The mooring slips with the accompanying
boats in Newport Harbor are the quintessential identity of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed
changes are about to destroy that very history. The only resolution that should be proposed is to protect
the history and identity of the city of Newport Beach and pass a resolution guaranteeing the protection of
the Harbor with max cap of 3.5% annual increase on the mooring permit holders.
Please be advised that any attempt to dramatically increase the rate of permit holders, who paid tens of
thousands of dollars for a permit, would render a mass sell off of permits thereby significantly devaluing
the value of the permit itself.
Your sincere attention into this matter, and how the permit holders play an important role in the very
historical fabric of the City of Newport Beach is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Yaneav Cohen
13-342
From: Jared Perrin <jperrin@harveyllc.com>
Sent: March 18, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
,All-.
I am disappointed to hear that the Harbor Commission is moving forward with their unfair and
unreasonabLe rate hike on mooring permittees. My understanding is that they are ignoring the
findings of a CBRE appraisal (a househoLd name in the reaL estate industry) in favor of a fLawed
appraisaL compLeted by Jim Netzer (who I had never heard of prior to this). I suspect many
permittees are not yet aware of the magnitude of this proposed change, and a 500% hike will
rightfuLLy be met with quite a bit of anger from a constituency who is intimately invoLved in the
Newport Beach community.
Please push back on what the Harbor Commission is trying to put forward with regard to rate hikes
on offshore moorings.
Thankyou,
Jared Perrin
Jared L. Perrin
Harvey & Company LLC
5000 Birch Street, Suite 8500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tet: 949-757-0400 ext. 1104
Fax: 949-757-0404
www.harveylic.com
perrin(a)harveyL[c.com
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the authorized use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It
contains information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure to persons other than the intended add res see. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank you.
13-343
From: pbgoode@gmail-com
Sent: March 18, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
We pay too much already to maintain our on shore mooring. PLEASE do NOT increase the rates.
13-344
From: Don Young <donnerdr@yahoo.com>
Sent: March 19, 2024 3:03 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring lease increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I tKFVAL UVIAIQ DO Imu I C= links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
My name Is Don Young. I am the permit holder of mooring F6 and P 82. 1 obtained my permits
approximately 6 years ago and had prior permit on A222 for approximately 12 years prior. I signed my
lease in good faith and have trusted the harbor commission to also use good faith in assessing mooring
fees. My opinion and the opinions of a very large amount of mooring permit holders and non holders
alike is that it appears to us that the member of the harbor commission are either non permit holders
or if they were have sold the permits knowing that the increase was of a totally ridiculous nature and a
total injustice to mooring permit holders. Government fee increases of any nature must be fair and just
that is what the United States of America is all about. If anyone on any commission thinks a 500%
increase is anywhere even remotely close to being fair they should perhaps seek to hold office in some
third world country where Injustice runs rampant and the public is held hostage to such decisions made
by government officials who have no concern or respect for they fellow man lam hoping that you who
hold these positions of deciding what is fair use good common sense and vote against such a totally
affair,injust and unsympathetic decision. Thank you for your time in reading this message as I sincerely
hope you have. Don Young
13-345
From: Nick Ralston <nickinlaguna@gmail.com>
Sent: March 20, 2024 8:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Indeed your selected hinch volunteers have the burden of an awful proposal. I don't care about their
opinion. They are just your weasels. Take ownership. Take responsibility. You know that your dumbass
governor is totally against our people in Newport. Hence the Ferry Law. Thanks for Terminal C at SNA for
SWA to create another one of their small airport hubs. 3 to 5 times the flights of the major Airlines. No,
that's not a carbon footprint. Great job. Get a clue. No votes from me unless you stop the nonsense.
Nick Ralston.
13-346
From: James Coleman <colemanjames@msn.com>
Sent: March 21, 2024 1:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Stop Mooring Gentrification
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
ItA I tKFVAL tFVIAILJ DO Imu I t-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
You must stop the mooring gentrification immediately!!
There will be a major effort to vote out aLL counciL members that support the insane rate increase.
Captain James Coleman
Mooring Permitee.
13-347
From: kewhite546@gmail.com
Sent: March 22, 2024 7:17 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
I have one onshore mooring which has been in my family since it was first installed.
Please do not raise the rates so drastically- many of us who have faithfully maintained them and
followed all the rules will suffer the mostH!
Sent from my Whone
13-348
From: tony forbes <tonyforbes2559@gmail.com>
Sent: March 23, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please Stop it!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
No mooring rate hikes!
Leave it alone it too expensive for people already.
13-349
From: Mark <mpruitt65@netzero.com>
Sent: March 30, 2024 2:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Come back to reality
Sent from my Whone
13-350
From: Jon Kosoff <jonkosoff@yahoo.com>
Sent: March 31, 2024 9:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Stop the Outrageous Mooring rate hike!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Lcgo
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 20 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.
In pushing this extreme discrimination, the city's Harbor Commission has completely
ignored the January 2024 independent appraisal by CBRE which shows the city of
Newport Beach's appraisal is way off base and does not even account for the lack of
dinghy docks to get out to our moorings, when every other harbor in California provides
dinghy docks to get out to a mooring. The independent CBRE appraisal, which is being
ignored by the Harbor Commission, shows there is no need for any increase in excess
of the CIPI.
Fortunately, the granting statute for Newport Bay has a specific clause prohibiting price
discrimination in the harbor. This anti-d iscri m i nation clause regarding rates in Newport
Harbor dates back to the early 1900's. It simply indicates, the city shall not charge one
user more than another for the use of the tidelands. Unfortunately, this price
discrimination is occurring today and will only be exacerbated ten fold if the proposed
rate increase is tolerated by this Commission. Lest there be any doubt, the city code
itself states that the people with moorings are to be charged rates similar to other rates
charged for users of the tidelands. This clearly flies contrary to that code.
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
13-351
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. The SLC staff has been provided
proof that the appraisal is flawed and the attempt to raise mooring rates up to 500%
and higher for shore moorings, which will clearly push average boaters out of Newport
Harbor while leaving the rates of other tidelands users alone. 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
13-352
From: bgriffith sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
Sent: April 01, 2024 2:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: CSLC.CommissionMeetings@slc.ca.gov
Subject: Newport Beach Mooring Increase -
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Hello City Council,
When considering the rate increase for the mooring holders, please consider the
following.
I believe it is around 750 private pier permits that pay around $300k to the city compared to around
800 moorings that pay around $1.3 million.
This is where many believe that discrimination has taken place over the years. Please
investigate why there is such a big difference in the fees.
Barbara
13-353
From: Pat and Bud C <patandbud@hotmail.com>
Sent: April 03, 2024 11:24 AM
To: Marston, Marie; Blank, Paul; Yahn, Don; Williams, Gary; O'Neill, William;
Harp, Aaron; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman,
Lauren; warren.crunk@sic.ca.gov; jstaplelton@newportbeachca.gov; Dept -
City Council; Beer, Ira; Scully, Steve; Svrcek, Rudy; Cunningham, Scott
Subject: Mooring Rate Increase Discussion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
April3,2024
To the Various Government Agencies Determining a Fair Rental Rate to be Charged the Mooring Permit
Holders in Newport Beach Harbor,
As a permit holder of a mooring and a permitted live a board I would like you to consider three
interpretations of a "fair and equitable" rental rate as opposed to the Netzer & Associates appraisal
being considered by the Newport Harbor Commission.
The Merriam -Webster dictionary defines Fair Market Value as: a price at which buyers and sellers with a
reasonable knowledge of pertinent facts and not acting under any compulsion are willing to do business.
My three rental price valuation reasoning considering this definition are:
The purely Capitalist approach which is "what the market will bear". This approach, I contend, is only
what the Netzer appraisal and therefore the Newport Beach Harbor Commission is proposing. Fairness
and equality are not considered, only at what rental rate that could be charged that would bring the
most revenue while fulfilling a demand. Referring back to the definition of Market Value - not acting
under compulsion, most present mooring holders will be compelled to pay the increase simply because
they have too much invested in both the mooring and the vessel stored on it to decline. Some of that
investment was that the city, in 2015, removed the waiting list to rent a mooring and made it official
that one had to pay to a private party a sum agreed to by both parties to transfer that permit to the
buyer. There was nothing nefarious, underhanded or illegal since then because it was the ONLY way to
obtain a permit. It was what the city ruled would be the only way to become a mooring permit holder.
However, recently, at least one city council member has stated he "can't get my head around" the
transfer process and is questioning the very rule his predecessors put in place and forced us to
participate in. By losing our transfer equity it seems we are being punished for something we had no
choice in.
Another thought is on Fairness. In early 2018 the then harbor commission considered an appraisal done
by the same company, Netzer & Associates, and they then established mooring rental rates. It was
stated the rates shall be raised according to CPI. Since then, inflation (CPI) has been about 28% or a 3.5%
yearly average. Knowing this and considering our finances at the time and reasonable future
13-354
expectations, we bought a boat we could comfortably live on and would be proud of. What can possibly
be fair about an unexpected 400% plus increase? The appraisal's comparable marinas have not
increased that much, nothing has. What has changed in the time between the two appraisals that makes
this huge increase fair?
The third possibility would be equality. As a couple on a fixed income we do not have the extra wealth to
invest that could make us wealthy. The mooring holders around me are teachers, a firefighter, a retired
Newport Beach sheriff department employee, numerous veterans, at least two harbor employees,
numerous local tourism workers, etc. These working people are lucky if their incomes have kept up with
inflation. The majority of the approximate 48 live a boards are retired on a fixed income. In todays
economy, generally, only the wealthy get wealthier and many of the wealthy can pay the Marina's rising
prices (again, no where's near 400%). Marinas are private, for profit entities who's goal is to make as
much income as it can, the city is not. Is it equality that the non -wealthy mooring holders go up even
more? Meanwhile, the homeowners along the harbor's shoreline pay considerably less than the
mooring holders for only their pier sq. ft. not even for the vessels moored on the piers. They use far
more of the tidelands for far less with no increase proposed. Plus they can rent out the area they're not
using and profit 20 times what they pay out. Absolute inequality!
The following is direct from title 17 — the Harbor Code
17.05.090 Local Coastal Program.
C. Where applicable, development in Newport Harbor shall:
2. Provide a variety of berthing opportunities reflecting State and regional demand for slip size and
affordability throughout Newport Harbor;
4. Protect shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access
to the water and harbor.
The other numbered lines 5 thru 8 all use the expression "expand and enhance" various public harbor
facilities such as dinghy docks, pump out stations, etc. none of which has changed since the code was
written, adding to the question of why the huge increase?
To sum up. In a pure commercial sense, charging whatever can be charged that would create as much
revenue as possible might be fair but would not be fair if it goes against the very principles that is stated
in it's own Code of purpose and, just as important, the city of Newport Beach is not a commercial
enterprise. It's stated goal is affordability but the perception in the mooring community is the city wants
to cleanse the moorings of the poor. If you cannot afford these higher rates, they don't want you. If
many of the existing mooring permit holders, the non -wealthy "common working people", the teachers,
veterans, firefighters, retirees, leave are they the poor? Would that make it unafforclable for them yet,
somehow, still within the cities "affordable" goal? If wealthier people replace them, is it proven to be
affordable again? Is that equitable?
With careful planning we are financially secure but on a fixed income. Had we expected such an increase
before we obtained our permit we would have done things financially different. I feel we had made a
handshake agreement with the city and the city is going against it, doing so extremely unreasonably. If
my wife and I decide to remain paying the increase because we have too much to lose by leaving (like
numerous others), does that mean a 400% increase is fair and equitable? If other comparable uses of
13-355
the tide lands is paying considerably less for essentially the same usage but with more convenience and
amenities, is that equality?
Please consider the view point of myself, a retired blue-collar machinist but a viewpoint that I am
confident echoes the majority of mooring permit holders in Newport Harbor.
Sincerely, Herman (Bud) Coomans
Mooring H-813
13-356
From:
John Rogers <jtr5l562@icloud.com>
Sent:
April 10, 2024 9:41 AM
To:
Dept - City Council
Cc:
Cindi Rogers; Blank, Paul; Bill Seals
Subject:
Proposed rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear council,
Regarding the proposed rates increase for individual mooring owner:
The harbor commission has ignored a second appraisal and is using one that was completed by someone
who is not truthful and has other interest which he represents with the City - His bases for the increase
ignored the fact the Yacht club members who pay more for moorings receive numerous additional
services for their money - Secure Parking - wash down capability - charging access - shore boat service -
storm protection (they have crews that monitor their mooring field during storms) Also help with Sea
Lion issues- none of these aforementioned items are being offered with the proposed rate increase?
They propose to raise the rates 5x without any benefits in serving the individual mooring owners while
segregating them from other tidelands users - commercial moorings, dock owners and on shore
mooring owners -
All of this is going to limit access to our children to enjoy the harbor in the future -
It's wrong on so many levels! The city does not need to single out one segment of tideland users.
Treat people fairly please! Don't abuse your power!
Resident for 60 years!
John Rogers
540 De Anza Drive
Corona Del Mar, 92626
John Rogers
130 E. Alton Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-824-3780
13-357
From: R Jacks <rrjacks@gmail.com>
Sent: April 10, 2024 2:44 PM
To: Harbor Commission; roberto.uranga@coastal.ca.gov; Dept - City Council;
Admin
Subject: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
unless you recognize the sender and know the content
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM —
A PLAN THAT WILL ASSURE CURRENT MOORINGS ARE ALWAYS NEATLY POSITIONED
Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Ira Beer's double mooring system was proposed as a means of
making order out of the currently haphazard location of moorings. It will be expensive to execute and
it's obvious the current effort to 5X our mooring fees is the city's solution to cover the cost for this
potentially awkward and dangerous project.
I've attended all the hearings regarding the double mooring system. My concern, beyond its
impracticality, is that it will be subject to the same disarrangement as the current fields because of the
sloppy way mooring balls are repositioned when being extracted for servicing and then repositioned.
For example: My mooring in B field (B-43) has been repositioned 25 feet away from where it was 11
years ago, just by routine servicing.
SOLUTION:
I'd like to propose the following for consideration:
Mooring balls in each field should be correctly reconfigured to their original plan, then mapped by
engineers who would assign precise, survey -quality GPS location numbers (latitude and longitude) to
each mooring ball within the field. This is the same method surveyors and engineers use to determine
the corner markers for land parcels and lots.
To reposition each mooring ball to its correct position, workers would follow the newly engineered map
by using a Handheld Survey GPS to properly reposition each mooring ball. They simply find the correct
location by matching the GPS numbers for each ball to its reading on the handheld device. These devices
are accurate to within one inch and are available on Amazon for less than $200.
Thereafter, maintenance workers would simply use the Handheld Survey GPS to correctly position
mooring balls after each service. This would be a very simple and inexpensive way to keep the fields in
proper order.
ADVANTAGES
13-358
The above method would make the proposed double mooring system unnecessary. The solution above:
• Organizes the current fields into geometric order and maintains them that way.
• Does not require testing for its feasability.
• Does not interfere with the tried-and-true methods boaters have successfully used to attach and
detach from moorings during hazardous conditions.
e Would not subject the city to liabilities should boaters encounter problems with the proposed, and
unproven double mooring system.
e Could be implemented at a small fraction of the cost of the proposed double mooring system.
COST CONSIDERATIONS
1. Engineering costs for the proper layout for each mooring field. This will have to be done, anyway, for
the double mooring system.
2. Costs for repositioning the current moorings according to the newly engineered plans, with GPS
coordinates, would be significantly less than constructing the complex and dangerously cramped double
mooring system.
SUMMARY
Assigning survey -quality GPS coordinates to each mooring ball, then having maintenance workers use a
handheld Survey GPS to locate exact positions would assure proper placement after servicing. Mooring
fields would always be orderly, safe, and maintain adequate room to maneuver when leaving or arriving
at a mooring thus eliminating liability issues.
And finally, the above method could save millions of dollars by eliminating the proposed double
mooring system that mooring holders neither want or trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Jacks
Mooring: B-43
949 335-2324
rriacks@gmail.com
13-359
From: Beer, Ira
Sent: April 10, 2024 4:12 PM
To: R Jacks; Harbor Commission; roberto.uranga@coastal.ca.gov; Dept -
City Council; Admin
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Jacks,
Thank you for your comments related to various initiatives undertaken by the Newport Harbor
Commission. First, I would like to assure you the study for determination of fair market rents of
onshore and offshore moorings is in no way connected to the initiative relating to the
optimization of the existing mooring fields via a pilot test at one mooring field location.
In addressing your comments related to the mooring rental rates, the City of Newport Beach
must charge fair market rates for use of public tidelands held in trust for the state of California.
Charging less than fair market ratesfor the use and occupation ofgranted sovereign land may
constitute an unconstitutional gift ofpublicfunds and a violation of the City'sfiduciary duties
to the state. There is a Harbor Commission meeting this evening at 5pm at the Civic Center
where the Commission will review the matter for a recommendation to City Council. I
encourage you to attend and provide comments during the public comment period for this
agendized item.
With respect to the mooring optimization initiative, there has been much public outreach over a
three-year period addressing your comments and concerns. You may access all those records on
the city website. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to let me
know. Thank you again for taking the time to provide your comments.
Best regards,
Harbor Cum missioner
Lbetr
(SL49)
From: R Jacks <rrJacks(@9mai[.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 2:51 PM
To: Harbor Commission <HarborCommission(a)newportbeachca.gov>,
roberto.uranga(a)coastaL.ca.gov<roberto.uranga(a)coastal.ca.gov>, Dept - City Council
<CityCounciLPnewportbeachca.go >, Admin <mai[Pnewportmooringassociation.org>
Subject: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM
13-360
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM —
A PLAN THAT WILL ASSURE CURRENT MOORINGS ARE ALWAYS NEATLY POSITIONED
Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Ira Beer's double mooring system was proposed as
a means of making order out of the currently haphazard location of moorings. It will be
expensive to execute and it's obvious the current effort to 5X our mooring fees is the city's
soLution to cover the cost for this potentiaLLy awkward and dangerous project.
I've attended aLL the hearings regarding the doubLe mooring system. My concern, beyond
its impracticaLity, is that it wiLL be subject to the same disarrangement as the current fieLds
because of the sLoppy way mooring baLLs are repositioned when being extracted for
servicing and then repositioned.
For exampLe: My mooring in B fieLd (B-43) has been repositioned 25 feet away from where it
was 11 years ago, just by routine servicing.
SOLUTION:
I'd like to propose the foLLowing for consideration:
Mooring balls in each field shouLd be correctly reconfigured to their original plan, then
mapped by engineers who would assign precise, survey-quaLity GPS location numbers
(latitude and longitude) to each mooring ball within the fieLd. This is the same method
surveyors and engineers use to determine the corner markers for Land parcels and lots.
To reposition each mooring ball. to its correct position, workers wouLd fottow the newLy
engineered map by using a Handheld Survey GPS to property reposition each mooring baLL.
They simply find the correct location by matching the GPS numbers for each baLL to its
reading on the handhe[d device. These devices are accurate to within one inch and are
available on Amazon for Less than $200.
Thereafter, maintenance workers would simply use the Handheld Survey GPS to correctLy
position mooring baLLs after each service. This would be a very simpLe and inexpensive way
to keep the fields in proper order.
ADVANTAGES
The above method would make the proposed double mooring system unnecessary. The
soLution above:
13-361
• Organizes the current fields into geometric order and maintains them that way.
• Does not require testing for its feasability.
• Does not interfere with the tried-and-true methods boaters have successfully used to
attach and detach from moorings during hazardous conditions.
* Would not subject the city to Liabilities should boaters encounter problems with the
proposed, and unproven double mooring system.
* Could be implemented at a small fraction of the cost of the proposed double mooring
system.
COST CONSIDERATIONS
1. Engineering costs for the proper Layout for each mooring field. This will have to be done,
anyway, for the double mooring system.
2. Costs for repositioning the current moorings according to the newly engineered plans,
with GPS coordinates, would be significantly Less than constructing the complex and
dangerously cramped double mooring system.
SUMMARY
Assigning survey -quality GPS coordinates to each mooring ball, then having maintenance
workers use a handheld Survey GPS to locate exact positions would assure proper
placement after servicing. Mooring fields would always be orderly, safe, and maintain
adequate room to maneuver when Leaving or arriving at a mooring thus eliminating liability
issues.
And finally, the above method could save millions of dollars by eliminating the proposed
double mooring system that mooring holders neither want or trust.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Jacks
Mooring: B-43
949 335-2324
rrjacks@gmail.com
13-362
From: Sandy Manich <sanclyrnanich@yahoo.corn>
Sent: April 11, 2024 4:00 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Dock owner settlement
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
MLe.
Why are you targeting moorings and not docks?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Phone
13-363
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ludgate <kiwipaulludgate@gmail.com>
11, 2024 4:23 PM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
&.-, k e, a V, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Mooring rate increased
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
How can this be ?
Would someone be kind enough to explain the logic ? Or thought process where the council thought this
was a reasonable and fair action ?
The courtesy of an actual response would be appreciated and appropriate
Paul
13-364
Mayor - Wiliam O'Neill
wo n e 11 l@ n ewop rtbeachca. g ov
City Council
citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
A
a
Baal LMWM "we Mow I mrs
Exi-511mg
Amium Pm-prm It Fj*
JApptoximata�
35ft
$1,403
40ft
$1,603
45ft
$1,804
50ft
$2,004
60f(
$2P405
70ft
$2P806
Sent from my iPhone
C
D
E
PhIVA10 P4*tfj6U.0
PFIV.Itd MkP-OFIFPK
PFw0td".*wft P*Perrnadr
EwhstIOCRAR
PPft0Q4qd
p1d"010d PCw f4twoKs
Xn n u A Piptynil F*.b
Aprupal
pon4multo
JA,ppieximjte�
Po r M it F L-,,
Pnc:*-3-t*
$309
$4,292
2 06%
$317
$5,770
260%
$311
$6,642
268%
$450
$8.724
33,5% Ptptrw4w
$534
$12,211
509% Rpuwmi
S617
$14.935
432% ppraiai
rha ci), "Mr) diplrs�*d
Prom exhlb!* D on *.hp
K.C. AgWrL03 j1ji)Q4
13-365
From: tomiovenitti@gmaiI.com
Sent: April 19, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Harbor Vote
Attachments: Harbor Commission january 2024.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
nks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
Newport Beach Council Members, Honorable Mayor, Good morning,
If it's not too late I have more to add to my concerns. Attached you will remember my last
two correspondences, January 29th and February 6th email below regarding the mooring
fees and attempt to increase those monthly cost by method of independent appraisal set
forth by Netzer & Associates. I have been informed that the appraisal was not independent
and created by a company affiliated with other projects in Newport Beach. The emails,
correspondence and alleged involvement by this and other company's connected to our
City concerns me. I am also informed the City Atorney has also been apprised of this
concern outlined by a group of dissenters. I am not just against the discriminatory way this
is being handled but also concerned that the impact will have lasting financial burden on so
many of the mooring permittees some on fixed incomes. I ask you to vote NO on any
increase in fees other than those currently being assessed annually by the consumer price
index. There are solutions to consider regarding the budget shortfall experienced by the
Harbor Department. Here are some to consider that would assist in reaching the revenue
needed to operate.
1) Provide a parking permit for mooring permits to 1 dinghy for access to be tied to a
public pier. That cost could be assessed to $300 annually. This fee provides services
and can be a way to increase revenue by $1S0,000 annually.
2) Create a metered parking area on public piers that much like a auto will need to
apply by the parking apps for non -annual permit holders
3) Assess the vacancy factor of the marina park area and offer out of season prices to
increase the revenue from visitors who pass up Newport Harbor because of high
fees. This offseason value can increase the marine attendance and create a revenue
at 50% discounts where the existing vacancy provides zero revenue.
4) Raise the dock fees across the board to waterfront properties to a minimum rate to
meet mooring fees. Without any impact to mooring fees just that alone will meet the
expectation necessary to accommodate the budget shortfall for operations.
5) Cut overhead cost shortfalls in the budget by 20% and monitor spending more
closely in all aspects of the Newport Harbor areas. The savings is over 800,000.
13-366
6) Apply a maintenance cost to the existing vessels on moorings. Those vessels in
disrepair will be assessed a fee monthly if not in line with the Harbor Departments
minimum floating guidelines of operations and cleanliness.
7) Propose a committee to create water events whereas contestants pay a fee to enter
sports and boating events that all the entry fees assist with harbor efficiencies.
8) 1 am sure there are many other creative opportunities that could be discussed to
meet that expectation of revenue.
The City can afford new bridges to nowhere probably not used often but pretty, library
extended conference centers for 299 seats when those seats are available already in many
venues and new fancy community entry signs replacing ones that were just fine for areas in
Newport Beach. The City can afford to find other ways to raise money for the shortfalls if
we have millions to spend on these projects. In closing I am asking the City Council to vote
NO on the additional fee assessment not only from the bias appraisal methods but because
it's the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
Mooring H-210
From: tomiovenitti@gmail.com <omiovenitti@gmai1.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:10 AM
To: citycouncil@newportbeachca.go
Subject: mooring fees
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members,
Attached is my written disapproval of the Harbor Commissions appraisal and overview of
the existing mooring evaluation and fee proposal. In my written disapproval I itemize many
different objections and opinions regarding the appraisal utilizing yacht clubs as a
comparable giving value to ways to increase fees to mooring permittees. This email is not
disparaging to anyone specific nor intended to be combative in nature but simply to
express my complete and utter disappointment in the ways which our City is attempting to
impound, repossess or create default for many mooring permittees. It is my intention, to
support any and all means of opposition to this usury fee assessment that could impact so
many residents, including myself a permittee H-210 and visitors. I have been in favor of
finding ways to minimize the area by testing bow to bow mooring designs. I have also been
in favor of many harbor initiatives but this is not one I will support. The commissions
attempt to find ways to support this idea of fee increase is unconscionable and totally usury
in my opinion. The way it has been done annually to date is in compliance with cost of
living increases and should remain reasonable.
As a side comment: Moorings are a historic monument in our Harbor. Newport is a safe
haven for boating where many, not just rich, can enjoy the benefits we provide through this
13-367
offshore and onshore mooring permits. I sincerely hope that the City will NOT vote in
agreement to raise the fees and impact the permittees along with the values associated
with those permits.
Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210
13-368
January 29, 2024
Harbor Commission
Harbor Department
City of Newport Beach
CC: Mooring Permittees
CC: Liveaboards
RE: Offshore and Onshore Mooring Fees
The appraisal report by Netzer & Associates uses all the techniques apparent in determining
fair market value of real property. The mathematical, applied principals and compilation
although true for residential and commercial type properties is used in every day review of
real property and not designed to determine water buoys. This MAI assessment of per linear
foot rental can be adjusted subjectively attempting to use those generally accepted methods
of finding value around the math given two components using the Balboa Yacht Club and
Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs rates. In as much as those rates might appear reasonable in
their appraisal, the affordability and management of those mooring fields is not comparable
to other areas within the Newport Harbor mooring system.
With only 1 selected appraiser of 4 that applied, applying subjective mathematics, it is
apparent that the Harbor Commission is reaching for ways to support the rates they are
looking for or at least would prefer to approve through this approach. Housing has become
unaffordable, residential rentals have become unaffordable, fuel and groceries are more
expensive in Newport Beach, insurances more expensive, and now the commission has seen
a potential gold mine of opportunity to place permittees in default.
Some facts to 12onder:
1) Some Permittee owners have been in place for over 50 years.
2) Mooring fields are similar however many are 2 ball systems not swing moorings.
3) Chain Weight and floats are similar.
4) Values and equity are similar.
5) Repairs are the burden of the permittee.
6) Yacht club tenants are rentals not permittees with equity.
Important Facts to consider identified and not identified in Netzer & Associates
Appraisal: (these are not bad items just not compara "Ie
1) Yacht club mooring fields are private members only.
2) Yacht clubs have a waiting list creating supply and demand value.
3) Supply and demand create higher price for members, non -owners.
4) Yacht club mooring fields have members who generally can afford the cost for
XG I'Mr.] 11 Da 110ra
5) Yacht clubs control the mooring fields in their area.
1
13-369
6) Yacht clubs have mooring tender services.
7) Yacht clubs have facilities within the site of each mooring with similar members as
neighbors.
8) Yacht club moorings have no visible unattended or nonfunctioning vessels.
9) The surrounding view is much better.
10)Yacht clubs have parking and common interest with its mooring fields.
1 1)Yacht clubs rent for profit. Permittees cannot rent for profit.
Impact on mooring permittees:
1) Unaffordable to most.
2) Live aboard persons will be impacted severely.
3) Approximately 579 non yacht club offshore moorings impacted.
4) Approximately 80-90% of those S79 will be adjusted unaffordable.
5) Equity will be impacted at rush to sell Permits.
6) Many permittees will default.
7) Unfair with no services, no shuttle.
8) Mooring fields have no low-income or fixed affordable area designations.
a. If identified as comparable to real property then all the ADA and Low Income
and affordability law components need to be addressed. Including Veteran's
Groups who are owners.
Impact and why is anyone's guess?
1) City & departments looking for income to pay for Library meeting halls or other
venues.
2) City & departments looking for money to pay for mooring field reduction and mooring
adjustments to bow -to -bow system presently being reviewed in Mooring Field C.
3) City & departments forces many to sell and or not renew permits. Places a huge
burden on fixed income owners and permittees to sell.
4) Many reasons can be perceived.
Comparable Methods:
Using a waterfront property in comparison cannot be applicable to the appraisal. Waterfront
property with pier and dock provides access and conveniences beyond that of a mooring
field. The one most valuable waterfront benefit is that a home owner with a slip, dock and
pier, have the right, to rent their water space at a rate of 60-$80 dollars a foot therefore
receiving great benefits for that right in excess of the pier head line by the width of the float
or width of the vessel providing encroachment into the common traffic space by up to 20 plus
feet of benefit. Mooring permittees have no rights to rental nor benefits to access but the
burden of all the maintenance with zero services attributed to a homeowner's waterfront
connection. Therefore, the cost, value, comparable, rental, income approach to land facilities
has no commonality.
2
13-370
Summary:
Yacht club members for the most part have the financial capabilities to pay the rates outlined
for the conveniences and location within the yacht club venues. There is a premium for
location. The fees charged are not for ownership of the permit but a pure rental to the yacht
club with the tenant having no permit rights to transferability. It is a waiting list and pure
economic supply and demand issue with yacht clubs having waiting list to the members. Will
the yacht clubs be increasing their rates due to the City and Harbor Departments proposal?
Maybe to $30 per linear foot? Interesting to see their take on the question.
As a matter of interest; At the meeting there were discussions overheard of members, off
microphone by many in attendance, discussing how to deal with the fees proposal as a
sidebar way to raise rates but without comment. It seems the old sales tool of hit um high
and settle them low is in place but still usury in my opinion.
I am not in favor of impacting many with such an egregious increase outlined in the
evaluation. I feel its usury and by the nature of its appraisal subjective even though well
outlined it is not a pure scientific method of approach since the values set by yacht clubs are
not values of ordinary people. It is discriminatory and leads to impacting those who are
grandfathered in, who have been there for years because its reasonable and will now be faced
with no way to maintain their presence in Newport Beach as a boating enthusiast.
Although I am in favor of cleaning up the harbor in ways to eliminate unsightly vessels and
maintain the beauty of Newport Harbor, but to impact 1000 or more people or families like
this is unfair and needs to be cancelled as a Harbor initiative. Reasonable rates are in place
today and updated annually to meet the expectations of the cost of living.
Tom lovenitti
T'OTW Iovenittt/
142 5 W Bay Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210 Mooring
tomiovenitti@gmail.com
13-371
From: Carter Harrington <carter.harrington@gmail.com>
Sent: April 22, 2024 12:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Please don't raise mooring rates. It's unfair. Please comment on the objective CBRE appraisal.
Carter Harrington.
13-372
From: Winner1436 <winnerl436@aol.com>
Sent: April 22, 2024 4:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increases
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
hello
i am sure you have received lots of input on mooring rate increases
here is an additional issue you may not have been informed which seems very unfair.
I am a mooring holder
If my mooring is not used for a period of time - the city has the right to rent my mooring
for a large fee and they retain the money.
And during this time- I must also pay the city the normal ongoing fee
But a dock holder can rent the space in the water to who ever he wants for whatever fee
they want and they receive all of the income.
The city receives none of this income
where is the equity in this??
I am in total agreement with all of the comments which you are receiving from numerous
mooring holders about the astronomical proposed fee increases with no changes to
current very low dock fees and do not need to repeat those concerns.
thank you
Philip Lowry
13-373
From: Sandy Manich <sanclyrnanich@yahoo.corn>
Sent: April 22, 2024 6:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I tKFVAL tFVIAILJ DO Imu I t-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
How dare you?!
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Phone
13-374
From: Lynda Barraca-howard <mooziel@aol.com>
Sent: April 22, 2024 6:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate hikes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
City council, I ask that you reconsider the unfair rate hikes being proposed. The mooring I have has beer
in the family for 3 generations and not being a part of this community for my entire life, it would greatly
impact our family. We would most likely have to give up the mooring and thus our small boat because
we are not a "new" islander and don't have the finances to absorb the 500% increase. Inflation is one
thing; this is gouging.
Blessings, Lynda
13-375
From: Steven Legere <stevenwlegere@aol.com>
Sent: April 22, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Rateincrease
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Totally unfair looks like a money grab
Sent from my Whone
13-376
From:
rpiot8@gmail.com
Sent:
April 23, 2024 8:18 AM
To:
Dept - City Council
Subject:
Stop the Discrimination in the Harbor of Newport Beach Now!
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
JtA I tKFMAL tFV1A1LFVV1T0T-=K links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Newport Beach City Council Stop the Madness in the Harbor now! These 5 reasons point our
why you should not move forward with a rate increase for Mooring permit holders in Newport
Beach:
1 . A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
2. Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more compared to other
permits. We already pay our fair share
3. Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina slips. Apples to
oranges comparison
4. The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer himself indicated
it was unreliable to peg mooring rates to slip rates.
5. Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is little access
with no amenities
Price Discrimination in Rates Charged by the City
Wealthy Waterfroid Dock- Periwil Average Joe Mooring Permit
ays $30 a month Will pay $480 a rrnio
q -
7 he G Ity wl I I be forel ng mooring permittees to pay I 5x for the sanve
peirmilt In the same harbor
13-377
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: April 23, 2024 6:04 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: I sold my boat already, my mooring is next for sale. Re: April 23, 2024
Public Comment, Agenda Item# 14, Rents/Fines/Fees/
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Pit Kaz <peterkhazzz@)qmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 6:03:57 PIVI (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Ad lever <adleverahotmail.com>
Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityCIerkanewportbeachca.qov>; O'Neill, William
<woneillanewportbeachca.gov>; Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad
<bavery@newportbeachca.qov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn
<rqrant@)newPortbeachca.qov>; Blom, Noah < N Blom C& newportbeachca. gov >; Kleiman, Lauren
<Ikleiman(�)newportbeachca.qov>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.SpencerCa)coastal.ca.gov>;
Kate. Huckelbridqe@coastal.ca.gov <Kate. Huckelbridqe@coastal.ca.gov>; Karl. Schwinq@coastal.ca.gov
<Karl.Schwinq@coastal.ca.gov>; Ca[yl.Hart@coastal.ca.gov <Caryl. Hart@coastal.ca.gov>;
Linda. Escalante@coastal.ca.gov <Linda. Escalanteacoastal.ca.gov>; Susan. Lowenberg(d)coastal.ca.gov
<Susan. Lowenberq@coastal.ca.gov>; Justin.Cumminqs@coastal.ca.gov
<Justin.Cumminqs@coastal.ca.gov>
Subject: I sold my boat already, my mooring is next for sale. Re: April 23, 2024 Public Comment,
Agenda Itern# 14, Rents/Fines/Fees/
XTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
JM6
Hello Adam Lever,
First of all, thank you for providing detailed information. We all appreciate your hard work and
dedication in this important and crucial matter for the mooring permittee and live -bearers.
Second, I sold my boat on Monday (yesterday) as the result of unprecedented mooring rate hikes. I am
in the process/debate of selling my mooring if the discriminatory and unjustified hikes are passed by the
city.
Last, our moorings practically will be worthless after couple years (rate hikes).
We are not looking for miracles or handouts but I wish we had someone to listen and look at our
provided documents. The conflict of interest in provided appraisal by harbor commission (the back and
forth email and tights). and why they are not looking at independent/3rd party appraisal. So many
things to be aware of. Just tired and ready to give but still have my hopes "
Best regards,
Peter Kaz
9493397737
13-378
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 1:20 PM Ad lever <adIever@hotrnail.corn> wrote:
Good day all,
Please find that attached, for your review and consideration.
Take care,
Adam Leverenz
13-379
From: Shaun P McCray <spmccray67@gmail-com>
Sent: April 23, 2024 6:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: mail@newportmooringassociation.org
Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Harbor and Mooring Rate Increases
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
LF-J% I F-n1vm1L F-Ivl- r_�K 11FIFb UF dLLdU1F11t:!1 I us unless you recognize the sender and know the content
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the proposed harbor code changes and mooring rate
increases that are set to be voted on during the upcoming City Council meeting on May 23rd, 2023.
As a concerned citizen and a mooring permit holder, I urge you to consider the following points before
making any decisions that would significantly impact the boating community:
1. Safety Concerns:
The proposed double -row mooring configuration poses serious safety risks to both vessels and
individuals. The lack of a comprehensive test plan, as highlighted by the Newport Mooring Association
(NMA), is deeply concerning. Safety should be the top priority, and any changes must undergo rigorous
testing to ensure the well-being of all harbor users.
2. Unnecessary Taxpayer Expense:
The allocation of $410,000 for a pilot test in the C field is unjustifiable, especially considering the lack
of clarity surrounding the need for such a drastic reorganization of the mooring field. Taxpayer funds
should not be squandered on projects that are not thoroughly vetted and proven to be necessary.
3. Lack of Preliminary Testing:
It is perplexing why the City is not utilizing its own inventory of moorings for preliminary testing before
proposing significant harbor code changes. The absence of such tests raises doubts about the validity of
the proposed alterations and undermines trust in the decision -making process.
4. Rushed Code Changes:
The request for harbor code revisions before the completion of the pilot test is premature and
reckless. Making changes without concrete evidence of success sets a dangerous precedent and could
lead to irreversible consequences for the boating community.
5. Ambiguity Regarding Permit Transferability:
The ambiguity surrounding the transferability of mooring permits adds unnecessary confusion and
uncertainty for permit holders. Clear and transparent guidelines should be established to ensure
fairness and equity in the permit transfer process.
13-380
6. Flawed Comparison to America's Cup Harbor:
Importing the double -row mooring concept from America's Cup Harbor, where tidal currents are
significantly weaker, is ill-advised. The unique conditions of Newport require tailored solutions that
prioritize safety and usability over mere replication of other harbor layouts.
Furthermore, I strongly oppose the proposed mooring rate increases for the following reasons:
- The proposed rate hike of up to 500% is exorbitant and unjustifiable.
- Mooring permit holders already bear a disproportionately high financial burden compared to other
permit holders.
- The Netzer appraisal's comparison of mooring rates to full -service marina slips is flawed and does not
accurately reflect the value proposition of mooring permits.
- The lack of amenities and limited access associated with mooring permits warrants heavy discounts,
rather than steep rate increases.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to prioritize the safety and well-being of the boating community,
reconsider the proposed harbor code changes and mooring rate increases, and engage in transparent
and inclusive decision -making processes.
Sincerely,
Shaun P. McCray
Mooring H36 / Zephyrus
627.590.5271
13-381
From: Barbara <barbara.piot4@grnail.corn>
Sent: April 24, 2024 9:49 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe; Dept - City Council; reid.boggiano@slc.ca.gov; Leung, Grace;
mayorwilloneil@gmail.com
Cc: eritchie@scng.com
Subject: Concern Newport Beach Resident - CC Orange County Registered -
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
attachments unless you
Hello City Council
I attended the meeting last night and observed the multitude of issues and
their complexities that the City Council must address. My concern lies in
the challenge of a group of seven individuals fully comprehending all these
intricate matters. It is evident to me now how the process unfolds: your
staff members, including the Harbor Commission, furnish you with
information, which you then deliberate upon and make decisions.
Allow me to express, in a respectful manner, that some of these
messages, originating from certain staff members and the Harbor
Commission, may carry inherent biases, thereby potentially overlooking
the concerns voiced by the people.
Here are some recommendations put forth by a group of residents: ( Start
a petition)
The city should relinquish its ambassadorship in managing the
harbor. Perhaps the county or state should oversee, given their
deeper understanding of the issues and their commitment to
listening to the community's voice
0 particularly regarding the discrimination surrounding
moorings.
13-382
Engage an independent forensic company to thoroughly examine
the operations of your staff, including the Harbor Commission. This
would entail scrutinizing emails and any instances of favoritism,
ensuring transparency and impartiality in decision -making
processes. ( starting with The Netzer Company)
Many residents in Newport Beach believe that there's something
significantly wrong with the messengers delivering information to
the City Council.
While I have faith that you, as a democratically elected group of seven,
working to act fairly, it is essential to acknowledge that the rapid growth of
our city necessitates accurate and unbiased information for informed
decision -making is important to.
Thank you,
Barbara
Resident of Newport Beach
714-623-4141
13-383
Additional Material Received - Public Comments
May 8, 2024 Harbor Commission Meeting
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
13-384
From: Sally Peterson
Shore Mooring Permittee
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
In anticipation of the Harbor Commission Mooring Rate Recommendations appearing on your agenda soon, I send
you my thoughts on the rate for the unique shore moorings.
There has been a lot of data presented regarding the offshore moorings. Shore (or "Onshore") Moorings are quite
different and should be addressed separately.
RE: SHORE MOORING RATE ERRORS and REVISED LOOK AT SLIP -TO -MOORING RATIO
- Flawed 2022 Shore Mooring appraisal conclusion was 12 times the current rate!
- Any use of the Slip -to -Mooring Ratio for Shore Moorings should be adjusted for:
- Size —Rate for a wider, longer slip was used - Requiring a downward adjustment of 28%
-Use Restriction - Electric Boats have created huge demand and higher rates for small slips
- Electric Boats cannot use Shore Moorings
Historic Shore Mooring rate at 50% of Offshore Rate may still be the correct methodology.
Slip -to -Mooring Ratio for Offshore Moorings should be revised, using "Like for Like" comparison which
yields a 14% ratio. (pg. 3)
RECENT HISTORY of SHORE MOORING RENT RECOMMENDATION
In 2022, an appraisal of the shore moorings was prepared for the Harbor Commission. The appraiser concluded
that the rents should increase to $360 per month. This proposal was 12 times the current $30.06 per month rate.
Common sense tells you something is wrong. Rather than order another appraisal, the Harbor Commission held
numerous meetings, but ultimately the subject was dropped from the Harbor Commission agendas. Then, in
January 2024, the Harbor Commission presented an appraisal (same appraiser) for offshore moorings. Again,
numerous meetings were held. It wasn't until the end of this process that the Harbor Commission presented their
recommended numbers for shore moorings, using the same analysis as for the offshore moorings. This is simple,
but WRONG.
I don't feel that this methodology is right for shore moorings, but if the Slip to Mooring Ratio is to be used, once the
flaws in the methodology (addressed later) are corrected, additional adjustments need to be made to the shore
mooring analysis as there are significant differences between the shore moorings and the offshore moorings.
SIZE ADJUSTMENT FOR SHORE MOORINGS
Uniquely, the shore mooring has not only a length restriction but also a beam limit. By Code, the maximum boat
length is 18 feet and beam is 8 feet. Offshore mooring boat lengths cannot exceed the designated length of the
mooring, but Offshore Moorings have no beam limit. And the rents for all offshore mooring lengths was derived by
a comparison to Balboa Yacht Basis (BYB) slips of the same length as each offshore mooring lengths. Because the
BYB does not have 18 foot slips, the Harbor Commission incorrectly used the rate for 20 foot slips. The typical 20
foot slip can hold a boat with a 10 foot beam (according to the California Department of Boating and Waterways
Design Guidelines and BYB staff). Using this Slip to Mooring Ratio, to accurately derive a rate for the shore mooring's
size restriction, a size adjustment must be made:
Shore Mooring Size — Maximum 18 x 8 = 144 S.F.
BYB 20 foot Slip 20 x 10 = 200 S.F.
Difference = -28%
13-385
DEMAND/LIMITED USE FOR SHORT MOORINGS
A review of the chart of rental rates shows that the 20 foot rate per linear foot is disproportionately high. This is
due to the high demand for these small sizes by the big users in this Harbor — electric boats.
Unique to all other mooring types, during low tides, boats on shore moorings are grounded. This prevents the use
of most boats during this time. And of significance, because of potential damage, this prevents the mooring of
boats with a keel and/or in -water rudder and props (electric boats +). And, of course, there is no electricity to
charge a boat on a shore mooring. Thus, this high slip rate for shorter slips that is driven by electric boat use in the
Harbor does not transfer to shore moorings and applying the same ratio as used for larger offshore moorings is
inappropriate. At best, a large downward adjustment should be made. Historically, the shore mooring rate was
50% of the offshore rate. Taking into consideration the square footage adjustment (-28%) and the limitation of the
boats (No Electric Boats +) that can be moored on shore moorings, the prior use of the 50% discount might be
applied to the 25-foot offshore rate to derive the rent for shore moorings.
OTHER SHORE MOORING RENT ANALYSES
Direct COMDarison
Though there are not other shore moorings like Newport's in Southern California, there are three other tidelands
uses of small boat storage — Mission Bay Beach Bars, Alamitos Bay Sand Stakes and Santa Barbara West Beach. A
more detailed summary of these comparables and the calculations are presented on page 4. In brief, applying a
location adjustment derived by comparing the average rate for 25' slips in each harbor as compared to Newport
Beach, the concluded rate by Direct Comparison is $3.75/if/mo., or 48% of the proposed rent for 25 foot moorings.
Ratio to Offshore
As previously discussed, historically, the Shore Mooring Rate was calculated as a percentage of the Offshore Rate —
50%. Since the rent is for tidelands area used, and shore moorings have a beam restriction that the Offshore
moorings do not, the 50% difference represented the difference in beam, or the total potential tidelands per linear
foot used. The percentage was derived by dividing the maximum beam allowed for shore moorings by the widest
beam for 20 to 30 foot production boats (Boats.corn survey).
CONCLUSION
Again, please realize that Shore Moorings are unique due to beam restrictions and the grounding of boats during
lowticle. Adjustments must be made for this uniqueness. If the final decision is to use a CORRECTED Slip to Mooring
ratio,
A rate of 50% of the 25-foot offshore concluded rent should be used for Shore Moorings
2
13-386
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE SLIP TO MOORING ANALYSIS IN DERIVING OFFSHORE RATIO
Since all other tidelands uses in the Harbor use the State Lands Commission methodology, I do feel that this is the
appropriate methodology for moorings.
However, if the Slip to Mooring Ratio is to be used, proper methodology needs to be applied to support the ratio
used. Please remember that once a ratio is adopted, the errors in the current rent recommendation made will be
hard to reverse and will be compounded year after year. The fact that the Harbor Commission adjusted the
appraiser's recommendations indicate that they saw flaws in the analysis. The flaws are more significant than
indicated by the Harbor Commission conclusions.
All involved have looked at the data many times and in many ways to determine what the problem is, but have
consistently worked with the appraiser's analysis. After looking at his data many, many times, it is my conclusion
that the significant issue that impacts everything is that the appraiser was inconsistent in the use of his data. For
some harbors, he used an average rent, while others he used the highest possible. Some rents were unverifiable.
His slip rates for each harbor were averages, but he doesn't provide what the average boat length is in each harbor.
Each harbor is different, but Newport has the longer boats, skewing his percentages higher. To correct this, a
comparison of mooring lengths in each harbor has to be compared to slips of the same length in that same harbor.
Since permittees pay the rent based on the maximum length possible on their mooring, not their boat length, this
maximum mooring length is the basis for comparison. And the slip rate for this same length is used for comparison
—LIKE FOR LIKE.
Mooring
Mooring
Slip Rate $/If/Mo.
Harbor
Length
$/If/Mo.
Same If as Moorin
Ratio
San Diego
29
5.09
22
23%
54
2.91
37
8%
60
2.42
30
6.5%
Mission Bay
25
2.69
16.55
17%
Santa Barbara
50
.58
12.23
5%
Morro Bay
54
2.04
17.17
12%
Monterey
50
1.57
11.80
13%
Pillar Point
50
2.03
11.32
18%
Admustments - It is appropriate for an appraiser to adjust for the differences between the comparable and the
subject. There are major differences that need to be taken into consideration, but weren't.
a. Ownership and maintenance of the mooring tackle varies between some of the comparables and the
subject. Of the comparables used by the appraiser, San Diego, BYC (most) and NHYC maintain the moorings for the
permittees. San Diego Mooring Company maintenance cost was estimated at $120/Mo. according to CBRE
appraisal. Two other harbors have both City maintained and leased out moorings and permitted moorings where
the Permittee installs and maintains tackle, similar to Newport. There is a 300% difference in rents between the
City -maintained tackle and the Permittee maintained mooring. This needs to be analyzed.
b. Dinghy storage is not included in any of the comparables' rent (except for BYC and NHYC) However, all
harbors except Newport Beach have dinghy storage available for a fee ($100/Mo.+/-). There are few dinghy storage
spaces available in Newport, and these have lengthy waiting lists. A dollar or percentage adjustment is speculative,
so a ratio at the bottom of the range might be appropriate.
Conclusion
No weight is given to the San Diego rates as the rents have not been increased in many years and Santa Barbara as
the moorings are in the outer waters and do not have much demand. Based on this, the ratio range narrows to 12-
18% with a concluded rate at 14%. Additional adjusting for maintenance is needed if BYC and NHYC are used.
3
13-387
FURTHER DATA FORD I RECTCOMPARISON TO OTHER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SMALL BOAT TID ELAN DS STORAGE
The following approach to value for shore moorings in Newport includes a Southern California Onshore Mooring
Comparison utilizing onshore moorings in three other areas. This approach incorporates a location adjustment
utilizing a comparison of slip rents between Newport and the other bays. Two slip rent surveys completed in
Newport are analyzed and surveys in other bays have been updated. Not included are marinas requiring
membership and marinas where significant data was not available.
The tidelands onshore boat storage in each harbor vary. None are like those in Newport. In fact, none are alike.
Mission Bay has Beach Bars, with each boat being assigned a spot on a secured bar located on the shoreline.
Alamitos Bay has what they call "Sand Stakes" with each boat assigned a wall ring on shore. These are available to
the permittee for 11 to 12 months. The boats have to be moved for beach replenishment, typically for one week.
11 month occupancy is used in this analysis. Finally, Santa Barbara has two types of storage, one for larger
catamarans and one fenced beach area for smaller boats. The catamaran beach is not included in this analysis as
in recent years, it has experienced very high vacancy. Briefly, each of these mooring types has its own advantages,
but are generally considered comparable. These others require more than one person or extra equipment to move
the boats into water, but Newport mooring permittees have to pay for maintenance of the mooring and boat
bottoms. The three onshore boat storage comps are summarized as follows:
Mission Bay Beach Bars $171/year with the typical bar size limit at 14 ft. $12.21/lf/yr
Alamitos Bay Sand Stakes $305/11 months for boats up to 16 feet $19.06/lf/yr
Santa Barbara West Beach $350/year for boats up to 16 feet $21.88/lf/yr
Location Admustment- A location adjustment utilizing the average rent for 25-foot slips for each area as compared
to similar rents in Newport is utilized in this analysis. The 25-foot slip is used because it is the most common small
slip size in each bay. The Newport Beach rate for slips is the rate for 25 foot slip at the Balboa Yacht Basin Marina.
The surveys in the other bays are current. The rents represent the rent per linear foot divided by the number of
marinas surveyed in each bay. The indicated adjustment factor for each bay is derived by dividing the average for
Newport by the average for each bay.
Newport Beach average of BYB = $32.38/lf
Mission Bay average of 4 marinas = $15.92/If Adjustment Factor = 2.03
Alamitos Bay average of 2 marinas = $14.90/lf Adjustment Factor = 2.17
Santa Barbara using one marina operated by the City = $11.48/lf Adjustment Factor = 2.82
Indicated rental for Newport Shore Moorings after the Location Adjustment — The rent per linear foot for the
three tidelands boat storage comps is multiplied by the Adjustment Factor as follows:
Mission Bay $12.21/lf/yr x 2.03 = $24.79/lf/yr.
Alamitos Bay $19.06/lf/yr x 2.17 = $41.36/lf/yr
Santa Barbara $21.88/lf/yr x 2.82 = $61.70/lf/yr
Conclusion: An average of all three indicate a rent at $42.62/lf/yr. In brief, the concluded rent is $45/lf/yr, or
$3.75/if/mo., or 48% of the proposed rent for 25-foot moorings.
4
13-388
Biddle, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Newport Beach City Council,
Barbara <barbara.piot4@gmail.com>
May 11, 2024 7:32 AM
Dept - City Council; Caryl.Hart@coastal.ca.gov; Susan.Lowenberg@coastal.ca.gov
State of the Bay Luncheon Hosted by Newport Harbor Foundation
FollowUp
Completed
It is my understanding that City Council wilt be attending the State of the Bay Luncheon hosted by
Newport Harbor Foundation, Wednesday May 15, 2024. It is the resident of this community opinion that
when City Council, joins this luncheon, it is against the Browns Act. The subjects that are being covered
at this luncheon, and the peopLe who will be attending the luncheon will, have financial benefit from their
attendance, including subjects that should be incLuded in public forum. I highly encourage the city
council to resend the attendance of this luncheon.
Increase in Mooring fees for mooring hoLders in Newport wiLL aLso be covered at this Luncheon. This
subject needs to be presented in a pubLic forum among the other topics that will be addressed.
newportharborfoundation.org
Barbara
714-623-4141
13-389
Biddle, Jennifer
From: Blank, Paul
Sent: May 16,2024 10:15 AM
To: John Rogers
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: RE: Harbor Commission contacts -
Mr. Rogers:
You can send an email to all Harbor Commissioners at HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov. City staff may also
receive a copy of the email. Please note, emails and correspondence with the Harbor Commission may be considered a
public record.
If you would like their individual addresses, they are available at the bottom of this City Harbor Department webpage:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/harbor-commission
Best,
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
----- Original Message -----
From: John Rogers <jrogers@synergydr.com>
Sent: May 16, 2024 10: 11 AM
To: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Harbor Commission contacts -
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Paul,
I hope you had a wonderful time at the opening day ceremony at BYC.
Would you so kind to send me the contact for for the Harbor Commission and its members -
As you know I am strongly against the proposed inequitable fee increases for off shore mooring holders and want to get
some explanation why they choose to single them out.
1
13-390
Thank you in Advance-
J R
John Rogers
949-683-8004
13-391
Biddle, Jennifer
From: Brian H Ouzounian <brian.oci@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: May 16, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fw: Coastal Commission Staff Have Expressed Concern Over Mooring Rates
Dear council members:
i am copying you on this issue. maybe one or some of you will respond with
some interest.
Best Regards,
Brian H. Ouzounian
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brian Ouzounian <brian.oci@sbcglobal. net>
To: Newport Mooring Association <mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
Cc: Joe Stapleton <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 at 09:44:34 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Coastal Commission Staff Have Expressed Concern Over Mooring Rates
NMA Board:
I have been a mooring holder in Newport Harbor for 50 years and also blessed to have a slip. I am utterly dismayed and
upset this all is, setting rates way above the benchmark rates created by the state land commission. I do not believe the
rate should exceed the State Lands Commission in Newport Harbor.
The bulletin below is NOT good news to residential slip owners as well as mooring holders.
10 years ago there was an all out Harbor War over these rates, and now residential slip owners are potentially being
dragged into another forced increase just because, they think, mooring holders are getting an outrageous jab. I recall the
days of " STOP THE DOCK TAX", which resulted in clearing out the whole city council in the next election. I urge, don't
lean on slip owners!
In the last several years, the city has pumped extra management costs by way of the creation of the Harbor department,
which is new and draining resources with no memory of where they came from. Can you remember council member Duffy
stating that the sheriff charges $300,000 per year to manage the Harbor and we, the city, can do it cheaper and better.
Wow, was he wrong and now the budget is $$2,500,000 per year and growing with a voracious appetite for more money.
The. Harbormaster makes a salary of about $216,000 per year alone and his deputy about 200,000 per year.
This mooring issue and the fighting forces have awakened a sleeping giant, and will surely cause great dissension among
residential property dock owners!
I sat in a board meeting with you about 10 years ago and I gave you fair warning.
Congratulations Scott Carlin, you've really mucked this up.
Brian
13-392
Sent from my Pad
On May 10, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Newport Mooring Association <mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
wrote:
View this email in your browser
11
Dear Mooring Holders,
We're happy to share some positive news with you: The NMA has met with the
California Coastal Commission Staff and provided our views on the Harbor
Commission's mooring rate hikes. Coastal Commissioners were alarmed by
the potential impact on low to average -income boaters who may find
themselves priced out of the harbor and directed Staff to investigate
further. The Commissioners also expressed concern regarding the disparity of
rates charged in the harbor for other permit types.
To provide clarity, here are the current and proposed rates for tidelands
use in Newport Harbor (based on a 40ft mooring):
Current residential dock permit rate: $0.56 per square foot per year (with
as many boats allowed on the dock that will fit)
Current mooring permit rate: $1.34 per square foot per year (the
City's equivalent to our current billing by linear foot)
New mooring permit rate (pending) $4.80+ per square foot per year
+Please note the new mooring rate will likely be closer to $9 per square foot in
5 years as the Harbor Commission has pegged future annual increases to
skyrocketing slip rates rather than the standard CPI annual adjustment.
This translates to a significant increase, for instance, a 40-foot mooring
currently paying $1,603 per year would soar to $5,770++ per year.
2
13-393
In addition to Coastal Commission concerns, the State Lands Commission has
issued a memo to the City of Newport Beach, suggesting the city should now
reevaluate residential dock rates in the harbor. An excerpt from this memo is
included below. It appears the obvious price discrimination related to the huge
mooring rate hike may disrupt all permit rates in Newport Harbor.
While we all would prefer to resolve our mooring issue locally, the Harbor
Commission's efforts to impose the exorbitant price discrimination have
gotten the attention of state authorities who are now questioning how the
City sets all tideland permit rates in Newport Harbor.
Let's work together to address these concerns and ensure fair access to our
beloved harbor for all boaters. The city has told Coastal Commission staff that
they hope to bring up the mooring rates issue in June. Be prepared: if and
when the mooring rates are brought up on the City Council agenda, we will
need the presence of ALL mooring permittees at the meeting. Contact your
City Council Representatives today to tell them to stop this disruption to
Newport Harbor!
M stapieton(a-)_newportbeachca.gov
bavery(cb_newportbeachca.gov
eweigand(cD_newportbeachca.gov
rqrant(a)-newportbeachca.gov
n blom(a)_newportbeachca.gov
lkleiman(a)_newportbeachca.gov
woneill(a-)-newportbeachca.gov
3
13-394
Have you signed the petition addressed to the California Coastal Commission
yet?
Click HERE for the petition
Thanks for your support!
Your NMA Directors
Looking out for the interests of all mooring permittees
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
F9
F9
F9
Copyright @ 2024 Newport Mooring Association, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you gave us your email address when you joined the NMA, or may
have given it to us at an annual meeting.
Our mailing address is:
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118
Newport Beach, California 92659-0118
13-395
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
13-396
Biddle, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
John Rogers <jrogers@synergydr.com>
May 16, 2024 10:11 AM
Blank, Paul
Dept - City Council
Harbor Commission contacts -
Red Category
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Paul,
I hope you had a wonderful time at the opening day ceremony at BYC.
Would you so kind to send me the contact for for the Harbor Commission and its members -
As you know I am strongly against the proposed inequitable fee increases for off shore mooring holders and want to get
some explanation why they choose to single them out.
Thank you in Advance-
JR
John Rogers
949-683-8004
13-397
Biddle, Jennifer
From: John Rogers <jtr5l 562@icloud.com >
Sent: May 16,2024 10:15 AM
To: Chris Benzen
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Re: SOTH I The Stewards of the Harbor Mailing List
Attachments: MooringDiscriminationRate.pdf; Resolution2015-10.pdf
1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unLess you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Great Stuff
Let's send this to each council members email? Can you send me their address — I copied the
Citycoucil, email that I have -
I am a mooring owner and a resident of Newport Beach and this is egregious dispLay of inequaLity and
class discrimination that peopLe hate about government and its representatives.
John Rogers
On May 16, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Chris Benzen <c.benzen@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not sure if you all received my email last week from "The SOTH" Stewards of the
Harbor. I'll be sure to add all of these emails to that email list this weekend. I've been so
busy lately that I can only find time to work on this stuff on the weekends and rare times
during work or at night.
I've built a website to house information and to educate new people that are going to
join our group. That website is: http://www.thesoth.com
Feel free to direct people to that website as it has the electronic payment link for
don ation/contri bution s that go directly into the trust account.
Also, see attached. I just finished an edit of a flyer that one of the liveaboards, had sent
me for review and editing. This is a great display that shows the blatant discrimination
going on in the harbor.
13-398
If the Harbor Commission is so worried about leaving money on the table, look at this
dock with two yachts, two duffys, three 9-15' skiffs, and one sailboat. The dock isn't
even registered as a commercial dock (they aren't reporting that they are subleasing;
i.e. paying their fair share to the Tideland Fund). This dock is paying $641.25 per year,
while the shore mooring right next to it will soon pay $4,320 per year.
I am not against the residential dock fee structure, I just want fairness. Targeting us
while allowing this to go on is absurd. The solution is for the City to amend resolution
2015-10 (which created the calculation for the residential docks), to include the words
"moorings". Also attached is resolution 2015-10.
Please continue to donate/contribute to the legal fund and spread the word. The legal
route is our only hope now.
Regards,
Chris
13-399
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, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay
Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the
trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to authorize third parties to construct/maintain
residential piers upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article W'Section 6,
NBMC Section 17.60.060(D) and City Council Policy F-7(D) require the City to receive
fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands-,
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair
market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser;
WHEREAS, an appraisal report by Rasmuson Appraisal Services, and an
appraisal report by Netzer & Associates, were prepared and delivered to the City and
have been reviewed and considered by the City Council, which reports are part of the
record for this matter;
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 2013-88, approving a model residential pier permit for residential piers located upon
tidelands and establishing fair market value rent;
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 moorings, commercial piers and residential piers and directed staff to bring back
certain amendments contained in this resolution to improve the tidelands rent process;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the
record in connection with this resolution; and
WHEREAS, all previous resolutions, or portions thereof, and actions regarding
the fair market value rent for residential piers and the model pier permit template for
residential piers that are in conflict with the provisions in this resolution are hereby
repealed.
'3'ity of New---u, t Lx",ec
P 13-400
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1. The Recitals provided above are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.
Section 2: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in the
attached Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations, which is incorporated
by reference, provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rate
(and adjustments) in the attachment constitute fair market value rent for residential piers
located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive
discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisals of its City -selected
appraisers and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this
matter. The City Council further finds and determines the rent for residential piers
located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall be set in accordance with the
attached Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations. The rent established in
this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees with a residential pier located over
tidelands.
Section 3: The City Council adopts the revised model residential pier tidelands
permit attached to this resolution, and incorporated by this reference, for use by
residential pier tidelands users. The City Council finds that the residential tidelands
users subject to the attached model permit are not subject to the open bid process
found in City Council Policy F-7 because redevelopment/reuse of the tidelands by a
third party would require excessive time, resources and costs which would outweigh
other financial benefits.
Section 4: The City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent and
the approval of a revised model permit template for residential piers located upon
tidelands 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 Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the
adjustment of residential pier rent and the approval of a revised model permit template
for residential piers located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical
Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the residential pier
rent and permit contemplate the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of
the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent
for piers located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA
Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the
City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the
City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent and the approval of a revised
model permit template for residential piers located upon tidelands is not a project under
0
.C.Ity of Newpul L D "Ifo 13-401
CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment.
Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each
section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by
the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 10" day of February, 2015.
Edward D. Selich,
Mayor_,,m,,._
ATTEST:
Leilani f. Brown,
City Clerk
Attachments: (1) Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations
(2) Revised Model Permit Template for Residential Piers
City of Newport Beac- 13-402
Adiusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations
Residential Pier Rent
(1) Residential Pier Permittees shall pay as Rent Fifty Cents ($0,50) per square
foot of the Premises, as phased in and adjusted pursuant to this resolution.
Two (2) examples of the Rent calculation are provided below for illustrative
purposes:
Proposed - 215 VIA LIDO SOLID
Total Permit Area = 992 sq. ft.
�,nt t Fee
.2017.RL a. .$496.
_0.60/. ft)
Proposed - 417 EDGEWATER PL
Total Permit Area = 637 sq� ft.
..2017 Rental Fee:=. $3118.95
$0.50/sq. ft:
(2) Permittees that desire to rent/lease their Residential Pier shall notify the
City in writing. Permittees that rent/lease their Residential Pier, either in
whole or in part, shall pay the Rent applicable to Small Commercial
Marinas as established in Resolution No. 2012-98, or any successor
resolution, for the Premises.
(3) To the extent a Residential Pier is shared by two (2) or more Permittees,
the Rent shall be apportioned equally among the Permittees (i.e., if a
City of Newpui t L) lt", iA 13-403
Residential Pier is shared by two (2) Permittees, half (1/2) of the Rent
shall be billed to one (1) Permittee and the other half (1/2) of the Rent
shall be billed to the other Permittee). The Permittees shall be jointly and
severally liable for the Rent. Each Permittee shall receive a permit from
the City indicating the percentage of the Premises apportioned to the
Permittee,
Periodic Adjustments of Rent and Phase In
Rent for Residential Piers provided by this resolution, shall be phased -in and
adjusted as follows in the table below. In the table, "A" represents the calculated rent
based on the known square footage under permit in 2012, multiplied by Fifty Cents a
square foot ($0.50/SF):
FLY Cents ($0.50) Rent Phase -in Table and Adjustment
E=1=ONE=
Emm alum
V�RVWNMWMVV
$100
([A-$1001/5)
([A-$1001/5)
([A-$100]/5)
([A-$1001/5)
Fully Phased -in
+$100
+ 2013 Rent
+ 2014 Rent
+ 2015 Rent
Rent (A)
Example #1:
$100
$194
$288
$382
$476
$570
1,139 SF
Example #2:
$100
$223
$345
$468
$590
$713
1,426 SF
Example #3:
$100
$428
$756
$1,084
$1,412
$1,740
3,480 SF
A = square footage x $0.50
Rent for Residential Piers of one hundred ninety square feet (190') or less shall pay the
fully phased in Rent immediately and be subject to CPI adjustment beginning in 2018.
During the phase -in period there shall be no adjustment by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
("CPI"), Los Angeles-Riversid e-0 range County region or otherwise.
Beginning in 2018 and indefinitely beyond, the rental rate shall be adjusted by the
change in the CPl or two percent (2%) whichever is less. The City may conduct a new
appraisal of residential pier rental rates in Newport Harbor after March 1, 2018, and
every fifth (5 th) year thereafter, as part of the appraisal required by Resolution No. 2012-
96, or any successor resolution. The City Council, at its discretion, may use the
appraisal to adjust Rent for the following year (Le., the Rent determined by the appraisal
following March 1, 2018 shall be effective March 1, 2019). If the City Council chooses
not to adjust Rent across the Class of Permit, it shall use the appraisal's results to
adjust the Rent of only those individual Permits that transfer ownership following each
appraisal. Once adjusted, these transferred Permits shall be adjusted by the change in
CPI or two percent (2%), whichever is less, until such time that a new appraisal applies
to this Permit or Class of Permit.
.C.Ity of Newpul L Diveo,
13-404
Definitions
Unless otherwise provided, the terms provided in the Newport Beach Municipal
Code ("NBMC") shall apply to this resolution. The singular of any term also includes the
plural.
(1) Class of Permit means all Permits for Residential Piers in Newport Harbor.
(2) Permit refers to a permit issued by the City authorizing a Residential Pier
upon the Premises.
(3) Permittee means a person who has a permit from the City to
construct/maintain a Residential Pier.
(4) Premises means those Tidelands which are subject to the applicable permit
and are more particularly described and depicted in the applicable permit,
excluding any Private Waterways and improvements owned by the Permittee
or Tidelands subject to recorded easements for pier and slip purposes. The
Premises shall include only the portion of the Tidelands located under a
Residential Pier and shall exclude the interior U-Shape of a slip.
(5) Private Waterways means privately owned submerged lands or submerged
lands subject to recorded easements for pier and slip purposes.
(6) Rent means the annual fair market rent charged on a square footage basis
for the use of the Premises.
(7) Residential Pier means a pier used by the owner(s), occupant(s), guest(s) or
lessee(s) of the abutting residentially zoned upland property. A Residential
Pier shall include the entire pier system, including, but not limited to, the float,
gangway, gangway landing, pier, and pier platform. The Residential Pier
shall specifically exclude the interior U-Shape of a slip.
(8) Tidelands mean certain tidelands and submerged land (whether filled or
unfilled), located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, granted to the City of Newport Beach, as trustee, by the State of
California, pursuant to the Tidelands Grant.
(9) Tidelands Grant means uncodified legislation related to the State of
California's grant of certain rights in the Tidelands to the City of Newport
Beach, including, without limitation, the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of the
Statutes of 1978, as amended [citations omitted]).
City of Newport buew, 13-405
ATTACHMENT B
Residential Tidelands Pier Permit
(1) Permittee; This Permit is issued on to
("Permittee") to construct/maintain a residential pier located upon City of Newport Beach ("City")
tidelands, as more particularly described and depicted in Attachment 1 ("Premises"), which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. By acceptance of this Permit, the Permittee
agrees to be bound by the terms contained in this Permit.
(2) Term: This Permit shall be valid for a period of _ year(s) beginning on March 1,
20 and expiring on February _, 20_, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. A new
permit may be automatically issued upon expiration, provided rent is paid and the pier is
maintained. The City's longstanding policy is to re -issue residential permits to the upland
property owner, who also owns the physical dock associated with the Premises.
(3) Rent: Rent shall be calculated pursuant to Resolution No. 2015- or any
successor/amended resolution. Resolution No. 2015- — and any success�o`rlamended
resolution are automatically incorporated by reference into this Permit, without any further action
by the parties, when adopted by the Newport Beach City Council.
(A) Payment of Rent: All rent shall be annually prorated and billed through
Permittee's Municipal Services Statement ("MSS"). All rent shall be due and
payable pursuant to the terms of Permittee's MSS.
(6) Late Cha[ges: A ten percent (10%) late charge shall be added to all payments
due but not received by City by the due date.
(C) Third -Party Use: This Permit o allows / n does not allow (check one) the
Permittee to rent/lease the Premises to a third -party,
(4) Utilities and Taxes: The Permittee is solely responsible for obtaining all utilities and
paying all taxes (including possessory interest tax, if applicable), fees and assessments for the
Premises or improvements located thereon.
(5) Maintenance. The Permittee assumes full responsibility for operation and maintenance
and repair of the Premises and associated improvements throughout the term of this Permit at
its sole cost, and without expense to the City.
(6) Transfer/Assignmen : This Permit may be transferred or assigned by the Permittee as
provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
(7) Property Right Protection: The residential pier maintained under this Permit is private
property and shall be protected to the maximum extent under the law from unlawful seizure.
(8) Settlement Agreemen . This Permit is in full compliance with the February 21, 2014
Settlement Agreement entered into between the City and the Newport Beach Dock Owners
Association.
C 0
ity of Newport 13-406
MEDIUM I IVA NO I IUI.
Attachment 1
Description & Depiction of Premises
Premise's Address (or description of general location):
Premise's Square Footage:
Premise's Depiction:
City of Newport Bea(..�- 13-407
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2015-10 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the I oth day of February, 2015, and that the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Petros, Council Member 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 11 th day of February, 2015.
4y4hV'-. - , &t'�
5ty Clerk 'V'
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)
City of Newport buo,, 13-408
Tidelands Rate Discrimination
Dock v Mooring
=$360/month
=$53/month ,
=$O/month
Currently, dock permits pay significantly
less for boat storage. They also aren't
charged for the "'buffer space," around th
docks, so all of these boats are stored on
tidelands for free; effectively a gift of
public tidelands, which is explicilty agaim
California law.
The 18 foot shore mooring (teal circle) wi
pay $360 per month under the new
Harbor Commission Recommendation.
Furthermore., the Dock permit allows the
permitee to rent to third parties, they also
aren't required to register their vessel
information with the Harbormaster., and
they are not required to name the City, its
employees, and contractors on their
insurance, among other benefits.
Our only hope to stop this Rate Hike is for
a lawsuit to halt the City and for a Judge
to look into all of this. There is a group
that has hired a lawfirm and has notified
the City of it's intent to file a lawsuit.
Residential Pier Permits (1)
Residential Pier Permit >
Address: 351 BAY FRONT E
Permit Area Total Square Footage: 1. 125
Dier is not shared by more than one resident. Fee 15 based
on total square footage.
Permit Fee
CurrentYear: S641.25
You can help donate to this cause via
www.thesoth.com
Pier Permit Exhibit
13-409
Biddle, Jennifer
From: Yonkers, Ken J - NEWPORT BE CA <ken-yonkers@ml.com>
Sent: June 03, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed mooring rate increase
Dear City Council:
While the Harbor Commission is a well -intended hard working City volunteers, I feel their proposed rate increase is a
misguided effort to raise money. We all know the moorings offer an affordable ability for less affluent boaters to have
access to the harbor. If they had the money, they would certainly opt to pay the dock fees for the safety, convenience,
and amenities (water and electricity mainly, but showers, restrooms, etc.).
As it relates to shore moorings, have the appraisals factored in:
We have no hose, no electricity, sand crabs drawing blood on our ankles, ladies not wanting to go boating as their shoes
get wet or sand on them or they cannot climb up on the boat, as opposed to the ease of stepping off a dock into a boat.
Have they factored in the stress of the boat's hull from being on the sand? Have they considered the shortened engine
life of the engine by having no hose or water to flush the salt water from the engine? What about the occasional sinking
and permanent engine damage?
The Harbor Master Department verifies the registration of the boat matches the mooring occupant for each mooring in
the harbor. Why is this not done for the docks in the harbor (I have friends who own docks, but this is a
reality)? Millions of dollars are collected in dock fees from dock owners who lease space on their docks, tax-free.
The below picture is a popular brand Grady White which has a flat bottom. The king tides happen fast and the bottom
sticks to the sand bringing water over the transom (back of the boat). The Harbor patrol had to pump it out and tow
it. This happened to my Grady White twice, over $3,400 damage each time.
13-410
13-411
-,p r M.. br c
-Ir
.64, Z—-
4 ftia,
93
13-412
Please leave the affordable opportunity the moorings provide for boaters as is.
Thank you for your sincere consideration.
Ken Yonkers
215 Crystal Avenue
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Ken Yonkers, President
Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association
P.O. Box 74
Balboa Island, CA 92662
949-683-7805
The Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association is dedicated to maintaining a safe, enjoyable, and
harmonious neighborhood while increasing the value of its members' properties.
Please visit our website: littlebalboaisland.org
This message, and any attachment(s), is forthe intended recipient(s) onLy, may contain information that
is priviLeged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions avaiLabLe at
http://www.bankofamerica.com/eLectronic-disclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, pLease
delete this message. For more information about how Bank of America protects your privacy, including
specific rights that may appLy, pLease visit the foLLowing pages: https://business.bofa.com/en-
us/content/gLobaL-privacy-notices.htmL (which incLudes gLobaL privacy notices) and
https://www. ban kofamerica.com/secu rity-ce nter/privacy-overview/ (which incLudes US State specific
privacy notices such as the http://www.bankofamerica.com/ccpa-notice).
13-413
Biddle, Jennifer
From: bgriffith sclfinance.com <bgriffith@sclfinance.com>
Sent: June 03, 2024 2:45 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Anne Stenton
Cc: Dept - City Council; Grant, Robyn
Subject: Request for meeting regarding Proposed Mooring Rates
Hello Mayor O'Neil,
It was nice to sit and chat on Friday at Starbucks. I learned so much more about our city.
Could you please contact NMA to set up a meeting to discuss the mooring rates? The President,
Anne Stenton, will be our point of contact. Mayor O'Neil, I believe a face-to-face conversation is often
the simplest and most effective way to communicate.
Anne Stenton
Newport Mooring Association
(949) 872-9415
anstenton(cD-qmail.com
Key Topics to Include:
1. WhoistheNMA?
1. Overview of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA) and its effective coLLaboration with mooring
holders & Newport Beach Residents
2. Discrimination in Tidelands Rates in Newport Harbor
1. ExpLoring the reasons behind the widespread perception of unfair treatment regarding TideLands
rates.
3. Unfair Terms for Mooring Holders
1. A discussion of the terms considered unfair by mooring holders.
4. Resolution Strategies
1. Potential approaches to address the issues with the City and engage concerned parties regarding
the fee increases.
2. CBRE appraisal.
Thank you for your leadership, and your dedication to our city.
With your success in mind,
Barbara Griffith
A resident of Corona Del Mar
714-623-4141
1
13-414
Biddle, Jennifer
From: ATX <theatreatment@yahoo.com>
Sent: June 10, 2024 10:41 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase.
PLease vote against the increase in mooring fees as the beauty of newport shouLd be appreciated not onLy
by out of town visitors but us LocaLs who have faLLen in Love with the life we have but may have noticed we
are being pushed out by the cost of Living.
Thankyou
WarmLy,
AroLyn Burns LPCC, LMFT
The A Treatment Center
www.TheATreatment.com
Located Corona deL Mar; Newport Beach
CaLL for a free 15 minute phone consuLtation now!
(833) 426-0303
Check out our YELP reviews:
https://s.yeLp.com/4Kaut8UB9u
And
https://s.yeLp.com/vgPfYF5VhA
Honored to be the recipient of the Prestigious Cornelia Funke Award for ExceptionaL
Social[Work in LA County 2014.
1
13-415
Biddle, Jennifer
From: Jeanne Conwell <jkconwell@yahoo.com>
Sent: June 11, 2024 10:58 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please vote no on the mooring increase. It seems unfair and not well thought out.
Thank you.
Jeanne Conwell
Sent from my iPhone
13-416
Attachment K
Ordinance No. 2024-15: Redlines
13-417
Exhibit "A"
The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.60 (Harbor Permits and Licenses) of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 17.60
HARBOR PERMITS AND LEASES
Sections:
17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.
17.60.015 Application for Harbormaster Permits.
17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits and Licenses or the Lease
of Public Trust Lands.
17.60.030 Pier Permits for Noncommercial Piers.
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.
17.60.050 Houseboats.
17.60.060 Public Trust Lands.
11. Section 17.60.010(A) (Public Trust Lands —General) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.
A. Applicability. Public trust lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of
navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are
presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the public trust at any time. The
City manages these lands through a series of permits, licenses, franchises and leases.
This chapter applies to permits or leases for public trust lands used for commercial
purposes by a person, other than the City, pier permits for noncommercial piers, and
mooring permits or licenses.
Ill. The title and content of Section 17.60.020 (Application for Pier/Mooring
Permits or the Lease of Public Trust Lands) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits,_Licenses or the Lease of Public
Trust Lands.
13-418
A. Required Forms. Except for permits to be filed with the Harbormaster, applications
for permits, licenses, or leases which pertain to Newport Harbor under the provisions of
this chapter shall be filed in the Public Works Department, in writing, on forms
prescribed by the Public Works Director.
B. Required Materials. Applications shall be accompanied by all plans, maps, and
other materials required by the prescribed forms, unless specifically waived by the
Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may request additional materials
deemed necessary to support the application.
C. Required Signatures. Applications for permits, licenses, or leases issued by the
Public Works Director may be made by the owner, lessee, or agent of the owner of the
property affected. The application shall be signed by the owner of record or may be
signed by the lessee or by an authorized agent if written authorization from the owner of
record is filed concurrently with the application.
D. Fees. Applications and renewals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by
resolution of the City Council.
E. Tidelands Users. Users of public tidelands, including commercial and
noncommercial users, shall be subject to rental or lease charges reflective of the fair
market value related to such use as established by the City Council with the assistance
of an appraisal. (Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 §§ 54, 55, 2018;
Ord. 2013-1 § 8, 2013; Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008)
IV. Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
A. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct, maintain, use or tie to a
mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands (i.e.,
an offshore mooring) or in the nearshore perimeter of Newport Harbor perpendicular to
the shoreline (i.e., an onshore mooring) without first having obtained a mooring permit
from the Harbormaster or having otherwise complied with this section. A mooring permit
or license pursuant to Section 17.60.045 is in the nature of license for the temporary
use of a specific location within Newport Harbor. As of August 22, 2024, the City will no
longer issue new mooring permits, other than sub -permits, but shall instead process
and approve mooring license applications pursuant to Section 17.60.045.
B. Issuance of Perm it—Cond itions. The Harbormaster, in furtherance of the tideland
grants to the City, may issue a mooring permit or mooring sub -permit to allow the
mooring permittee or mooring sub-permittee to temporarily use a portion of the waters
of Newport Harbor for the mooring of a vessel if the Harbormaster makes the findings
set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1). A mooring permittee may hold up to two mooring
permits at any time. A mooring permittee that held or continues to hold more than two
13-419
mooring permits prior to May 11, 2017, may continue to hold the mooring permits until
the permits are sold, revoked, or otherwise transferred under this chapter.
Exceptions.
a. The Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively, "yacht
clubs") currently hold permits for single point moorings placed within certain mooring
area boundaries established by the City, as noted in subsection (13)(3)(g) of this section.
In addition, the Lido Isle Community Association ("LICA") has permits for onshore
moorings on Lido Isle. These organizations shall hold their respective permits under the
yacht club, or respective organization name, for the moorings identified by the City as
under their respective control at the time of enactment of the ordinance codified in this
section. The yacht clubs and LICA shall be solely responsible for managing moorings
under their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under their control to yacht
club members and members of LICA, respectively. The yacht clubs and LICA shall keep
accurate records of the name and address of the club members and community
association members to which each mooring has been assigned and the corresponding
length of each vessel. The yacht clubs and LICA may not sell or otherwise transfer the
moorings under their control to a third party that is not a member of the yacht club or
LICA. Mooring records and 24/7 emergency contact information shall be provided
annually to the Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1 st.
b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall
length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the
assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the
assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into
the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel
restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen
(14) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the
assigned live -aboard vessel.
c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a
multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor.
An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a
multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who
shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application
shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable
standards and those set forth in Section 17,05.140(D)(1).
2. Permit Requirements. Prior to August 22, 2024, the City issued aA mooring permit
may be issued to a maximum of two (2) persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be
individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit.
The mooring permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length,
and assigned vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully
comply with the following conditions:
13-420
a. Identify on the permit the full legal name(s), current address(es), current telephone
number(s) and current email address(es), if one exists, of the mooring permittee(s);
b. Agree to be responsible for permit rent, fees, maintenance and repair of mooring
equipment;
c. The permit for joint ownership moorings shall provide that all parties shall have
equal rights under the permit and shall be held jointly responsible for compliance with all
rules, regulations, and conditions set forth in the mooring permit;
d. Grant permission to the City to temporarily assign the mooring to another vessel
when it is unoccupied through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit;
e. Agree to defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with
jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the
mooring permit except where the claim or loss arises from the sub-permittee's damage
of the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the
mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under subsections (G) and/or (H) of this section;
f. Provide proof of insurance for the assigned vessel naming the City as an additional
insured to the satisfaction of the Risk Manager;
g. Provide registration or other proof of controlling possessory right in the assigned
vessel, all to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster;
h. Agree to pay fair market value rent, as established by resolution of the City Council,
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;
i. Agree that the mooring permit does not provide any ownership interest in the
underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and owned by the people of the
State of California;
j. Agree to move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster because the vessel has
drifted from its assigned mooring location or to address safety or navigational concerns,
and also to authorize the City or its designee to move the vessel upon the mooring
permittee's failure to do so, at the permittee's expense;
k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or h-i=s-designee, to board the permittee's vessel at
any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s)
and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard
in accordance with applicable laws; and
1. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established
length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the permittee is subject to relocation
13-421
within the same mooring field for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension
requests. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of
relocations. The costs of relocation, including the moving of mooring equipment, shall
be borne by the mooring permittee who requested the mooring length extension.
Example: Permittee A has a mooring length of thirty-five (35) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty
(30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee B has a mooring length of thirty
(30) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee C
has a mooring length of thirty-six (36) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a
forty (40) foot row. Only Permittee B is subject to relocation.
3. Perm ittee/Tra n sfe ree Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural
persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or
transferred once no later than August 21, 2028, to, only the following:
a. A natural person(s) including, but not limited to, an immediate family member,
which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree
of consanguinity;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will or administering a
probated estate that holds a mooring permit, but only for one (1) year following the
death of the permitteg the peried of time pFier te distribution of the estate,
c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a
mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring
permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. A marine contractor, or marine support service provider, holding a mooring permit
used to provide current or ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services
(such as maintenance or dredging);
e. Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth education in boating and
marine activities; Kerckhoff Marine Laboratories for the purpose of marine and
oceanographic research; and American Legion Post 291 for the purpose of serving
veterans and their families and supplying them with affordable access to boating and
harbor activities; or similar marine educational entities; or
f. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and
the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City
within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These
designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas
in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled
to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are
located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current
number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 2011.
13-422
C. Plans and Specifications Required. No mooring permit shall be issued for placing,
erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or buoy is
constructed:
1 . In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by the
Harbormaster and at a location approved by the Harbormaster; or
2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring or buoy which
have been submitted by the applicant, showing the construction of such proposed
mooring or buoy together with the location thereof, and which meet the requirements
established in this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbormaster.
D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by
the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05-120.
E. Transfer of Permit. Mooring permits are nontransferable, with the exception of
mooring permits that were issued prior to August 22, 2024,the 8ff8Gt*VG date 9
OrdiRaRGe Ne. 2023-8 (july 13, 2023), which existing mooring permittees as of August
22, 2024, mav shall Gent'Rue to be transfer once, provided the transfer is completed no
later than August 21, 2028able unless surrendered or reveked. A meering., permit th
traRSferable may only be tFaRsfeFred E)Re tIM8 OR aRY tW8!Ve (12) RCK .41. pe, ied, URI86
transferred to a member ef the permittee's immediate farnil .
F. Procedures for Transfers. Permits shall not be transferred without the prior written
approval of the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster may approve the transfer of a mooring
permit sub'ect to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) under the procedures set out
below:
1. The mooring permittee(s) (or, if the permittee is deceased or incapacitated, the
transferee) shall submit to the Harbormaster:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by the Harbormaster);
and
b. Documentation that the proposed new mooring permittee (transferee) qualifies as a
mooring permittee under subsection (13)(3) of this section.
2. If transferee intends to purchase an assigned vessel but does not have title on the
assigned vessel owned by the mooring permittee and transferor at the time of transfer,
then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to the Harbormaster a
copy of a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or, in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership)
documenting transferee's ownership of the assigned vessel or, in the case of an
onshore mooring, a photograph of the assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel
13-423
registration laws. The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance
with Section 17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or
b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbormaster within the sixty (60) day
period, then the vessel or the mooring may be impounded, and the mooring may be
deemed vacant and assigned pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section.
3. If transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the assigned vessel and does not
have title to the vessel that will be moored at the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of an approved transfer, the transferee shall notify the
Harbormaster that the assigned vessel has been removed from the mooring and before
a new vessel may be placed on the mooring shall submit to the Harbormaster a copy of
a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current registration (or, in
lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the new assigned vessel, or in the case of an onshore mooring, a
photograph of the new assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel registration laws.
The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance with Section
17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or
b. If the documentation is not received within sixty (60) days of a transfer, the mooring
may be deemed vacant by the Harbormaster and the mooring may be assigned
pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section. The mooring may remain vacant
until such time the permittee notifies the Harbormaster of their intent to assign their
vessel to the mooring.
4. The transfer request shall be denied unless mooring permit rent, including late
payment fees, is paid current; required mooring inspections are current; registration or
documentation and insurance are provided; required maintenance and repairs are
complete and there are no derelict or unauthorized vessel(s) on the mooring; and the
vessel is of appropriate length with the appropriate weights and chains.
5. The mooring permittee and transferee shall provide a written agreement to defend
and indemnify the City of Newport Beach in any dispute with a third party over
transferee's right to be the mooring permittee or in any dispute with a third party over
the mooring permittee's right to transfer the permit.
6. The transferee shall provide written confirmation agreeing that no later four (4)
years from the transfer date, the mooring permit will convert to a mooring license and
comply with the requirements set forth in Section 17.60.045 and pay the rental rates
established by resolution of the City Council for mooring licenses.
7. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with all provisions of this
subsection, the Harbormaster must find all of the following conditions to approve the
transfer of a mooring permit:
13-424
a. The mooring permittee no longer owns the assigned vessel or has retained
ownership of the assigned vessel and has permanently vacated the mooring;
b. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions for issuance of a permit
in subsection (B) of this section;
c. The transferor or transferee has reported to the Harbormaster the price paid for the
mooring permit, and has paid to the City the required transfer fee; and
d. The transferor represents that the person did not discriminate against any
transferee or prospective transferee because of race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual
orientation, age or any other impermissible basis under law.
8-7. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two
mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee
imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.
98. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit,
subject to the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee
imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.
10-9. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of
the mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third
party's website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit
transfers.
11. Except as provided in subsections (F)(8) and (F)(9), four (4) years from the transfer
date but no later than September 1, 2032, the Harbormaster will convert all mooring
Dermits transferred between Auaust 22. 2024. and Auaust 21. 2028. to a moorina
license submect to the provisions of Section 17.60.045.
G. City's Authority to Assign Moorings through Use of Sub -Permits. With the
exception of the Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and the Lido Isle
Community Association's designated moorings, mooring permittee may not rent, assign,
or transfer the use of the mooring to any other person. With the exception of moorings
issued to mooring permittees described in subsection (B)(3)(g) of this section, the
Harbormaster shall have the authority to assign vacant moorings to sub-permittees
pursuant to the following provisions:
1. Deemed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign deemed vacant
moorings through the issuance of sub -permits at his or her own discretion. Sub -permits
may be renewed upon availability. The mooring permittee may reclaim its mooring upon
three days' prior written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to return the assigned
vessel to the mooring._A "deemed vacant mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon
which:
13-425
a. An assigned vessel has not been attached for thirty (30) consecutive days or more;
or
b. A vessel, other than an assigned vessel or approved sub-permittee vessel
approved in accordance with subsection (H) of this section, has been attached for thirty
(30) days or more; or
c. Required documentation for an assigned vessel has not been provided for a
transfer request pursuant to subsection (F) of this section.
2. Noticed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign noticed vacant moorings
through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit for any period of time, up to the
reoccupation date on the mooring permittee's written notice, or the twenty-four (24) hour
written notice per subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section. If the mooring continues to be
vacant for thirty (30) days past the reoccupation date indicated on mooring permittee's
notice, and there is no further written notice from mooring permittee, the mooring shall
become a deemed vacant mooring.
a. Mooring permittee may provide written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to
vacate its mooring for fifteen (15) days or more. These moorings shall be "noticed
vacant moorings." Written notice shall include the date the mooring permittee intends to
vacate his/her mooring, and the date he/she intends to reoccupy the mooring with the
assigned vessel.
b. If a mooring permittee provides written notice, the mooring permittee may reclaim
the assigned mooring on the reoccupation date indicated in his/her written notice or, if
the mooring permittee returns prior to or after the reoccupation date, upon twenty-four
(24) hours'written notice to the Harbormaster.
H. Procedures for Mooring Sub -Permit Issuance. Issuance of a mooring sub -permit
shall be subject to the following conditions:
1 . Provision of a written representation of the mooring sub-permittee's vessel length
which shall be satisfactory to the Harbormaster;
2. The mooring sub-permittee agrees to be responsible for any damage to mooring
equipment; to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach and the mooring
permittee against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to, the mooring rental; to
provide proof of insurance as may be determined by the City's Risk Manager; to provide
registration or other proof of ownership; to provide an equipment damage deposit, all to
the satisfaction of the Harbormaster; and authorize the City to move the vessel on the
mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director
and/or Harbormaster;
3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid by the mooring
sub-permittee. If the mooring is damaged by a vessel assigned by the City, or the City's
13-426
agent, the City shall arrange for the repair of the mooring with a qualified vendor and
provide notice to the permittee of the occurrence and the arranged repair date. Should
the sub-permittee fail to pay for the damage for any reason, the City will pay for the
required repairs to the mooring, and then seek reimbursement from the sub-permittee.
Also, the City shall make available a mooring without charge for the returning vessel of
the mooring permittee until such time as their permitted mooring is repaired;
4. The mooring sub-permittee shall provide approved mooring lines which shall be
removed at the end of the rental period;
5. A mooring sub -permit may be up to fifteen (15) days and may terminate at any time
for any reason, and may be renewed based on availability. Upon return of the assigned
vessel to the mooring, the Harbormaster will attempt to reassign the sub-permittee to
another mooring. Mooring sub-permittees have no right of renewal or substitute
moorings upon return of the assigned vessel, or upon termination of a mooring sub -
permit for any reason. Mooring sub-permittees accept an indefinite term at their own
risk. The decision by the Harbormaster to terminate a sub -permit shall be final and
nonappealable;
6. The mooring sub -permit rent will be based on a rate established by resolution of the
City Council; and
7. Mooring sub -permits are offered to the public on a first -come, first -served basis.
City owned and operated moorings may be reserved in advance.
1. Mooring Permit Transfer Nonrefundable Fee. The City shall charge the mooring
permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under and subffiect to the limitations
set forth in subsection (E) of this section in an amount equal to seventy-five (75) percent
of the annual mooring rent as established by City Council resolution. This transfer fee
represents a one-time nonrefundable transfer fee for the use of a mooring. A mooring
permit transfer fee shall not be required if:
1. The transfer is from the mooring permittee to the same mooring permittee as trustor
of an inter vivos trust, living trust or other similar estate planning tool; or
2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)Qj-7) and (98) of this section'
3. The transfeF is to immediate family.
J. Surrendered Mooring Equipment. If the mooring permittee sells, transfers, or
otherwise no longer owns the assigned vessel and does not intend to apply for, or does
not receive, approval to transfer the permit to another, the permittee may provide written
notice to the Harbormaster of his or her intent to surrender the mooring permit;
otherwise the provisions of subsection (G) of this section regarding a vacant mooring
shall apply.
13-427
Once a mooring permit is surrendered, the mooring permittee shall remove the
assigned vessel and/or the mooring equipment thirty (30) days after written notice of
surrender of the permit, or, upon failure to remove the mooring equipment, title shall
vest in the City and the City shall compensate the mooring permittee the fair value for
the mooring equipment, less rent or fees owed, as provided in subsection (L) of this
section.
K. Revocation of Permit.
1 . The grounds and procedure for revocation of a mooring permit are set forth in
Section 17.70.020.
2. Upon revocation of the mooring permit, it shall be the duty of the mooring permittee
to immediately remove the mooring equipment and any moored vessel. If not removed
within thirty (30) days of revocation of the permit, the mooring equipment shall vest in
the City and may be auctioned by the City to another person or may be removed by the
Harbormaster and the cost of mooring equipment removal shall be paid by the mooring
permittee. Any moored vessel or equipment not removed within thirty (30) days may be
impounded by the City and disposed of in the manner provided by law. City -incurred
costs of removal of mooring equipment or any vessel moored thereto may be charged
against the permittee and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered
by the City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or mooring equipment.
3. During any revocation proceeding, if the mooring is unoccupied, it may be
temporarily assigned as a mooring for guest vessels by the Harbormaster.
L. Moorings Reverting Back to City. -Moorings authorized bV a mooring permit shall
revert back to the City one (1) year after the death of all natural persons named as
,'mooring permitee(s)" as of August 21, 2024. Shouldin the event a mooring reverts back
to the City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, death, failure to
provide documents pursuant to subsection (F) of this section, or for any other reason
other than as set forth in subsection (K) of this section, the following shall apply:
1. The mooring permittee shall be entitled to recover all of the mooring permittee's
mooring equipment within thirty (30) days of reversion;
2. If the mooring permittee does not recover his or her mooring equipment, the
mooring permittee shall be entitled to payment from the City of the fair value of the
mooring equipment as depreciated by use in an amount to be determined by the
Harbormaster and as set in the City's master fee resolution, after any and all past due
rent and fees, if applicable, have been satisfied; and
3. The mooring equipment may be publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's
designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City
purposes.
13-428
M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.
1. General. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted
maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that
requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the
established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed
the established length of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a
larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring
row lengths.
2. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written
request for extension of mooring length with the Harbor Department on a form
prescribed by the Harbormaster, together with the filing fee required by the City's fee
schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
b. Application Requirements. An application for extension of mooring length shall
include the following information in addition to such other information as may be
required by the Harbormaster:
i. The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which the extension of
mooring length is sought, certifying that the applicant and the assigned vessel have
complied with (or in the event the vessel identification is unknown, applicant will certify
that such unidentified vessel prior to occupying the mooring space will comply with) all
of the applicable United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification
requirements, and certifying that the applicant has read and is otherwise familiar with all
of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City, including, but not limited
to, the provisions of this title;
ii. Such plans and specifications as may be required by the Harbormaster for such
mooring to accommodate the proposed longer vessel; and
iii. Detailed information regarding the vessel including make, model, year, LOA, beam,
dimension, vessel ID, and if the vessel identification is not known at the time of making
an application, the LOA and adjusted LOA (including bowsprits, swim steps, or stern -
mounted dinghies) of the proposed vessel for which the applicant seeks approval. The
LOA as published by the manufacturer of a particular vessel shall be used to determine
the required mooring size of a particular vessel, and the size of the specification for the
chains, weights, and tackle necessary to secure a vessel on a particular mooring for a
permittee. Adjusted LOA shall be used to determine the maximum vessel length that
can fit in any particular slip, side -tie, or mooring row.
3. Action on Extension Request. For extension requests that require relocation to a
larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same
mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of
13-429
relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a
permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established
length of its mooring row by five feet or more. The Harbormaster may approve the
extension request only after making the findings set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1)
and making the following findings:
a. There have been no changes in the conditions or circumstances of the existing
offshore mooring permit so that there would have been grounds for denial of the original
offshore mooring permit or grounds for revocation thereof at the time an application for
extension of mooring length is filed;
b. The proposed extension of mooring length will not:
i. Impede or obstruct the fairways or channels or prevent or obstruct the passage of
other vessels between the rows;
ii. Impede, obstruct or prevent other mooring permittees from safely navigating in and
out of adjacent moorings or moorings in other rows connected by the same fairway to
the row of the permittee's vessel;
iii. Result in vessel(s) encroaching into the fairway or extending beyond the outer
boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the established length of the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be
moored;
c. The applicant and the assigned vessel have complied with all of the appropriate
United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification requirements for the
assigned vessel and all of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City,
including, but not limited to, the provisions of this title.
Example of relocation to an available mooring. Permittee A wishes to upgrade their
vessel "Atlantis" (forty (40) foot LOA), which is in a forty (40) foot row, with "Atlantis 11"
(forty-two (42) foot LOA). A will need to relocate to a mooring in a longer row since the
mooring length cannot be extended at its current location. Permittee B's vessel
"Barnacle" (forty-one (41) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee C's vessel
"Calypso" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee D's vessel
"Doldrums" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. B has a permitted
mooring length of forty-one (41) feet; C's permitted mooring length is forty (40) feet; and
D's permitted mooring length is forty-one (41). All four moorings are in the same
mooring field. C's mooring is the only available mooring to which A can relocate.
4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster approves a request for extension of
mooring length, such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following
requirements:
13-430
a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with their vessel within
twelve (12) months following the date of approval;
b. Transferable mooring permits shall not be sold or transferred for a period of twelve
(12) months following the date of occupancy of the approved mooring. The sale or
transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and
(F) of this section; and
c. The requestor shall cover all costs associated with modifying the length of their
mooring, or in the case of a relocation moving their vessel to the available mooring and
moving the displaced vessel from the available mooring. The costs shall include, but not
be limited to, the moving of mooring anchors and tackle and resizing of mooring tackle
to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size).
5. Noncompliance with subsection (M)(4)(a) or (b) of this section shall result in
rescission of the approval to extend mooring length. Within thirty (30) days of the
rescission, the permittee who requested the extension shall at its sole expense return
the mooring to its prior maximum length or in the case of a relocation return their vessel
and the displaced vessel to their prior assigned mooring locations or other mooring
locations as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster. Violation of subsection (M)(4)(b)
of this section shall be grounds for revocation of the mooring permit. (Ord. 2023-22
§ 767, 2023; Ord. 2023-8 §§ 6-11, 2023; Ord. 2022-9 §§ 7, 8, 2022; Ord. 2022-4 § 2,
2022; Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 § 58, 2018: Ord. 2017-7 § 3,
2017: Ord. 2013-11 § 175, 2013; Ord. 2010-26 § 5, 2010: Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008)
V. Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.
A. General. As of Auaust 22, 2024. all new moorinas aDDroved bv the Citv will be issued
as a mooring license pursuant to this section.
1. If a short-term mooring license is issued pursuant to this section, a person shall have
the right to use or tie to an offshore mooring or onshore mooring in the waters of
Newport Harbor. A mooring license shall be nontransferable and shall not provide any
ownership interest in the underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and
owned by the people of the State.
2. The provisions and regulations in this title pertaining to "permittees" and "permits"
generally shall also be applicable to licensees and mooring licenses except when this
section expressly provides otherwise, or such application would conflict with this
section.
13-431
B. Term. Mooring licenses shall be valid for one month and may be renewed, provided
the licensee has paid in full the license fee, any late fees and is not in violation of any
provision of the license or this title.
C. License Fee —Late Fee. A licensee shall pay a license fee equivalent to the monthly
fair market value rent of the mooring, as established by resolution of the City Council.
Failure to pay the license fee by the due date shall be grounds for termination of the
license by the Harbormaster. If the Harbormaster, in the Harbormaster's sole discretion,
elects to not terminate a license for failure to pay by the due date, licensee shall pay a
late fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. Failure of a licensee
to pay the license fee and late fee within ten (10) days of the date due shall result in
immediate termination of the license and the termination shall not be appealable to the
Harbor Commission.
D. Eligibility Criteria.
1. Mooring licenses may be held only by natural persons. No more than two (2) persons
may be listed on a mooring license.
2. A person may hold up to two (2)_mooring licenses, but they cannot be for the same
type of mooring (e.g., both onshore or both offshore).
3. Onshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for onshore mooring licenses and
offshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for offshore mooring licenses except this
provision shall not apply to a mooring permit that converted to a mooring license
pursuant to Section 17.60.040(F)(1 1). Mooring permittees holding more than one (1)
mooring permit shall not be eligible for any mooring license.
4. The person or persons listed on the mooring license must have at least a fifty (50)
percent ownership interest in the vessel assigned to the mooring. The minimum
ownership interest requirement may be satisfied by the combined interests of the two
persons. For vessels that are not held in an individual capacity, such as in trust or by a
limited liability company, evidence of the required minimum ownership interest shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster.
E. Application for Mooring License. Application for a mooring license shall be filed with
the Harbormaster, on forms approved by the Harbormaster, and shall include the
following in addition to such other information the Harbormaster may require:
1. Applicant(s)' full legal name, current address, current telephone number and current
email address;
2. Vessel registration or other proof of ownership required by the Harbormaster; and
3. Insurance, which types and amounts shall be determined by the Risk Manager.
13-432
F. Issuance of Mooring License. The Harbormaster may issue mooring licenses subject
to the conditions set forth in this subsection.
1. Each person listed on a mooring license shall be individually and collectively
responsible for all activities pursuant to the mooring license and compliance with all
applicable rules, regulations, and conditions.
2. A licensee may not allow vessels other than the assigned vessel and tender to use
the mooring.
3. A licensee shall ensure mooring spreader lines remain visible on the surface at all
times by the use of floats or other devices or methods and shall keep the lines clean of
algae and other marine growth. Except for spreader lines, the City shall be responsible
for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of mooring system components, including,
but not limited to, chains, shackles, anchors, weights, lines, and buoys.
4. Live-aboards shall be prohibited except that this provision shall not appIV to mooring
permittees that also held a live -aboard permit as of September 1, 2028, whose mooring
permit converted to a mooring license.
5. The City may temporarily assign a mooring that is vacant or unoccupied to another
vessel through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit in accordance with Section
17.60.040(H).
6. A licensee shall move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster. Upon the licensee's
failure to do so, the City or a contractor retained by the City may move the assigned
vessel at the licensee's expense.
7. A licensee shall be subject to relocation or reassignment to another mooring pursuant
to Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(1).
8. The Harbormaster may board the assigned vessel at any time to inspect the condition
and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine
whether said devices are discharging overboard.
9. A licensee shall defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with
jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the
mooring license except where the claim or loss arises from a sub-permittee's damage of
the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the
mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under Section 17.60.040(H).
10. A licensee shall notify the City within five (5) days of any change in the information
that was provided in their mooring license application including, but not limited to, a
change in ownership interest in the assigned vessel.
13-433
G. Extended Vessel Absence. Vacancy or absence from the mooring by the assigned
vessel for at least twenty-five (25) consecutive days shall be deemed abandonment of
the mooring and shall result in automatic termination of the mooring license.
Termination of license based on abandonment shall not be appealable to the Harbor
Commission. The following situations shall not constitute a mooring being deemed
abandoned:
1. The absence or vacancy from the mooring, which shall not exceed six months, with
the prior written approval of the Harbormaster.
2. The licensee is in the process of changing the assigned vessel, provided that (a)
written notice of the intent to remove and replace the assigned vessel is given to the
Harbormaster prior to removal of the vessel, (b) all required information and
documentation for the new vessel, including proof of ownership or registration, is
submitted to the Harbormaster within ninety (90) days of the date of the written notice,
and (c) the vessel is made available for inspection by the Harbormaster for compliance
with Section 17.25.020(H).
H. Mooring of a Tender and Request to Extend Mooring Length.
1. A single tender, which serves as access to and from shore to the assigned vessel,
may be secured to the assigned vessel or to the offshore mooring in the absence of the
assigned vessel. The tender must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into
the fairway or obstruct other vessels.
2. A licensee may request a mooring length extension in accordance with Section
17.60.040(M).
1. Termination.
1. The Harbormaster may terminate a mooring license for the licensee's failure to
correct any violation of this section or any applicable provision of this title within the
timeframe set forth in a notice of violation issued by the Harbormaster.
2. Upon a determination that grounds for termination of a mooring license exist, the
Harbormaster shall serve written notice of the termination in accordance with Section
1.05.030 to the licensee stating the grounds for the action, the effective date of the
decision, and the right of the licensee to appeal the decision to the Harbor Commission.
The licensee shall have fourteen (14) days from the date on which notice is deemed
served to request a hearing or else the decision of the Harbormaster shall be final.
Termination of a license for failure to pay any fees or based on the abandonment of a
mooring shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission.
3. Upon termination of the mooring license, the licensee shall immediately remove their
vessel(s) from the mooring. The City may impound any vessel not removed within ten
(10) days of the termination date and thereafter dispose of it in the manner provided by
13-434
law. City -incurred costs for removal of the vessel may be charged against the licensee
and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the City from the
proceeds of sale of the vessel.
4. If a timely appeal is filed, the process for revocation of mooring permits set forth in
Section 17.70.020 shall be followed. (Ord. 2023-17 § 2, 2023)
13-435