13 - Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings - Correspondence — Newport Beach City Council, July 9, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Received after Agenda Printed
July 9, 2024
Item No. 13
Public Comment — Newport Beach City Council Meeting - 04/23/2024, Agenda Item #14, "...Revising Certain Fees Within the Schedule of Rents, Fines and Fees...":

Mayor and Council,
As related to the City's "ATTACHMENT A", under "BEFORE AND AFTER ILLUSTRATION - HARBOR DEPARTMENT SERVICE FEES", line item 17 c), "Guest Moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night", please refer to the excerpt page, attached hereto.

The "Proposed" and current "Fee" of $1.42 per LF Per Night, applied to one of the most of common mooring lengths in Newport Harbor, a 40-footer, pencils out to $56.80 a night, which would equate to $1,727 per month. This is only about $300 less per month, than rates for a well-appointed slip at the City's Balboa Yacht Basin Marina.

The setting of such an extraordinarily high offshore mooring guest rate, dissuades boaters. This, in conjunction with the City prohibiting mooring permitees from subletting their own permitted moorings, are primary contributors to the fact that approximately 100 moorings here, sit unoccupied on any given day (Note that the City does allow pier permittees to rent out their docks). The level of mooring vacancy, is more a product of a managerial approach of over -pricing, and restricting availability, than it is a scarcity of supply. Inaccurate data, and artificially inflated rent/fee prices result.

Pricing under The City's new "Mooring License Program", likewise suffers from an artificially high demand. Under the program, a great number of applicants, sought a very limited number of moorings. Near 20 applicants each, for a single 30', and single 40' mooring. Logically, those interested in a mooring, would rather obtain a License at a lower fee cost, than rent as a "Guest", for a much higher fee cost. Many people seeking something in very limited supply, creates inflationary pressure. Here again, the City has played a part in creating limited supply, with the pricing and restrictions it applies to the 100 or so vacant moorings.

Moreover, it makes little sense for the City to charge less in fees for Mooring Licenses, where the tackle/hardware is maintained at public expense, and charge much more in fees for "Guest" use of a Permit holder's vacant mooring, where the City does not incur the expense of maintenance.

And important to note, is that reference to CPI based adjustments for Line Items 17 and (k "Note [b]" for onshore and offshore mooring Fees in the schedule before you tonight, would instead be swapped out under Harbor Commission recommendation, for increases based upon a higher than realistic comparison percentage of well- appointed Marina slips to moorings. A scenario of much higher fees going forward is the likely result, especially considering City plans to rebuild Balboa Yacht Basin.

(Please see the attached "Mooring Rental Rates Phased -in", and Documents showing 3 years of price increases at the City's Balboa Yacht Basin Marina) Dispensing with the use of customary, and broadly accepted and applied CPI adjustments, and/or established, and regularly reviewed State Benchmarks, will lead to substantial Fee increases. The transformation of bay/ocean access from a diverse group, of lesser means, to a more exclusive and affluent group, is in actuality, a Phasing -out of the former. Claiming to spread the Phase -out over "almost 6 years", does little to quell the broken hearts, and stolen dreams of the boaters and their families who will be detrimentally affected. The City should neither endorse, or condone excluding them.

Adam Leverenz
adleverQhotmail.com
et al.

Additional City Fee Study Concerns:
1) Being that Mooring license application, and Mooring license waitlist fees are within the study, fees for those actual mooring lengths to be licensed, should be as well:
- Fees as of March 1- 2024 are in dhe talale beloAr Fees are adjusied annually on July 1 and are indexed to similar-sizad slips in th& Balboa Yacht Basin
Mooring
PerTnittee
Max Length
Type
I
License fee/LF
Monthly
License Fee
A,D72

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
30 Offshore Mooring
S 13.00
$ 390.00
A-094

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
95 Offshore Mooring
S 22.00
$ 2,090.00
C-0-12
OTY OF NtWPORI BEACH
51)
Offshore Mooring
17-so
$ S)rs.ou
C-034

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
50 offshore Mooring

17.50 $ 075.00
C-036

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60 Offshore Mooring
2000
$ 1,200.00
C-042

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
40 Offshore Mooring

15.()0
600.00
F414

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60 Offshore Mooring

20.00 1,200.OD
H-031

CATY OF NEWPORT BEACH
50 Offshore Mooring
17-50
875.00
H-091

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60 Offshore Mooring
5 20.DO
$ 1,200.OD
K107

OTY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60 Offshore Mwing
$ 20-00
$ 1,200.00
J-02 11

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
60 Offshore Mooving
S 20.Do
$ 1,200.00
N-062A

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
18 Onshore Mooring
S 9.0io
162.00
S-01S

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
18 Onshore Moor! ng

9.00 $ 162.00
S465
OTY OF KitwPOAT BEACH
18 Onshore Mooring
g-00
162.00
5-135B
C ITY OF NEWPOftT BEACH
18 Onshore Mooring

9.DU
162.00
W-017 -CITY

OF NEWPORT REACH
in
Onshore Moor�ng
9m
162,00
2) Being that the Mooring Transfer fee, based upon 75% of annual rent, currently appears the largest mooring related fee, and that it will increase exponentially under the Harbor Commission's April 10, 2024 rent increase recommendation, that fee must be part of the study now. (The Transfer Fee of $1,181.40 1 paid in October 2023, will increase to $4,327.20, best case scenario, after phase -in) 3) It would be helpful to review Pier Permit Fees at the same time as Mooring Permit Fees, so that the disparity of the affluent paying near to State Benchmark Rates, while the less affluent pay multitudes more, and over a greater calculated square footage, can be addressed in tandem.

Document form Page 14-7 of Attachment A, City Council Meeting 4/23/2024 Agenda item 14 (Revising City Fees City of Newport Beach

BEFORE AND AFTER ILLUSTRATION - HARBOR DEPARTMENT SERVICES FEES 17 Mooring/ Slip Rental /Storage
a) Dinghy Storage - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night
b) Guest Moorings - Onshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night c) Guest moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night SubLet of moorings cl) Impound - Nightly Storage Fee - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night e) Large Vessel (8G+ LF) Offshore Guest Mooring - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night 0 Large Vessel Guest Anchorage Rate - Non City Tackle - no boat g) Marina Park Boat Slips (40' Slip) - Per Night
h) Marina Park Boat Slips (55'Slip) - Per Night
i) Marina Park Boat Slips (Overhang Charge) - Per Foot/Per Night j) Moorings - Offshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Year
k) Moorings - Onshore - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Year
1) Multi -hull Vessel - 2 hulls - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night m) Multi -hull Vessel - 3 hulls - Per Lineal Foot (LF)/Per Night $0.69
$0.69
$0.70
$0.70
2%
2%
$0.01
$0.01
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1.39
$1.42
2%
$o.o340 ft=$1,727n/a
Per Month
n/a
Same as Guest
Same as Guest
2%
$0.00
n/a
n/a
$1.72
$1.75
2%
$0.03
n/a
n/a
$0.52
$0.53
2%
$0.01
n/a
n/a
$88.0
$90
2%
$2
n/a
n/a
$121.00
$123
2%
$2
n/a
n/a
$2.22
$2.26
2%
$0.04
n/a
n/a
$39.38
$40.17
2%
$0.79
n/a
n/a
$19.68
$20.07
2%
$0.39
n/a
n/a
$1.66
$1.69
2%
$0.03
n/a
n/a
$1.94
$1.98
2%
$0.04
n/a
n/a
[b]
[b]
1 . The city wins when it sub Lets (rents out) a permitted mooring because the underlying permit hoLder pays for the am enity/tackle. It costs the city nothing. AlLrevenues go to the city.

2. The existing sublet rate is too high as evidenced by the number of vacant moorings through the harbor (roughly 100 each day). The sub Let rate for a 40ft boat is $1,727 per month.

3. The city should lower the sub Let rate unti Ito make these subLet (guest moorings) more afford a bLe and avaiLabLe to the average boater.

4. Many sublet moorings are avaiLable every summer when the mooring holder sets out for Long voyages. They are also avai [a btein the winter when boats are at shipyards foroverhauL.

5. The city is creating a false scarcity of moorings in Newport Harbor by setting these sublet rates way too high.

6. It is concern ingth at the H a rborCommission has used interest levels in the recentLyroLled out mooring license program (16 moorings) as justification to raise perm it rates when, in fact, rough Ly 100 moorings are avaiLabLe but unrented each day due to the high sub Let rate set by the city.

Notes:

No increase in rates until January 1, 2025.

Six Proportionate increases over almost 6 years.

BYB (Balboa Yacht Basin) rates are based on the City
adopted Marina Index of 5 marinas in Newport
Harbor per the Netzer appraisal.

January 1, 2025 and July 1, 2025 increases are about
one -tenth the difference between current rates and
the adjusted FMV.

Each fiscal year beginning July 1, the annual
adjustment is about one -fifth the difference between
current rates and the adiuqted FMV.

In addition to the rate increases shown in this spreadsheet, Each year the increase will be adjusted based on 24%
of the annual adjustment percentage per the City
Marina Index for slip rentals.

In otherwords, what you see on this matrix is n twhatyouget.

The rate increases will exponentially compounded by the annual rate increases of the Balboa Yacht Basin (BYB) slip fees, which irrationally serve as the index for the unrelated "water only" mooring permit fees. Over the last few years, slips rates at BYB have gone up ;t;l 5% at the BYB. With this in mind, we have applied 15% slip increases on the 40ft column to illustrate what the mooring rate increases may really Look like under this plan.

Rate Comparisons
Increase Is Phased -in Through HE 2030
Price Per Linear Foot Per Month
Designated
Mooring
Lengths
BYBAverage
Slip Rental Rate
S/LF
Current
Mooring Rateg
SILF
Effective
Jan 1, 2025
Effective
July 1, 2025
Effective
July 1, 2026
Effective
July 1, 2027
Effective
July 2, 2029
Effective
July 1, 2029
LOA Feet
per LF
$ per LF
FYIE 2025
FYE 2026
FYE 2027
FYE 2028
FYE 2029
FYIE 2030
18 32.23
1,67

2.27 2.88

4.08 5.29

6.50 7.71
25 32.38

3.34 3.74

4.19 5.08

5.98 6.87

7.77 30

39.60 3.34

3.91 4.53

5.78 7.02

8.26 9.50
35 42.59

3.34 3.98

4.68 6.06

7.45 8.84

10.22 40

50.09 3.34

4.16 5.04

6.78 8.53
10,28

12.02 45

51.27 3.34

4.19 5.09

6.90 8.70

10.50 12.30
so

60.59 334

4.42 5.54

7.79 10.04

12.29 14.54
60 70.65

3.34 4.66

6.02 8.76

11.49 14.22

16.96 1 70

74.08,
3,341

4.74 6.19

9.09 11.98

14.88 17.78
Designated
Mooring
Lengths/Feet
BYBAverage
sl I p Rental Rate
$/Month
Current
Mooring Rates
$/Month
Price
Per Mooring
LOA Per Month
Jan 1, 2025
FYE 2025
J* 1, 2025
FYE 2026
July 1, 2026
FYE 2027
July 1, 2027
FYE 2028
July 1, 2028
FYE 2029
July 1, 2029
FYE 2030
18 580,14
30,06
40,93

51.79 73.52

95.25 116.98
138.72
25 809.50

83.50 93.46
104.75
127.00
149.50
171.75
194.25
30 1,188.00
100,20
117.34
135.90
173.40
210.60
247.80
285.00
35 1,490.65
11630
139.41
163.80
212.10
260,75
309.40
357.70
40 2,003.60
133.60
166.52
201.60
271.20
341.20
411.20
-48049�-
45 2,307.15
150.30
188.62
229.05
310.50
391.50
472.50
553.50
so
3,029.501
16T00
22036
277.00
399.50
502.00
614.50
727,00
60 4,239.001
200.40
279.41
361.20
525.60
689.40
853.20
1,017.60
70 5,185.831
233.80
331.72
433.30
636.30
838.60
1,041.60
1,244.60
$967.18

� e��Po
>
t n
U X
May 24, 2023
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
i wo w- u.abw Boulevard
Newpon Ek-ich. Calefosma 92663
949-270-SIS9 I VHF Channel 19
newponharboe.otg
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6. 2010), and per your slip/garagetapartment rental agreement which states that 60 day's notice must be given for any r ate adjustment, we are writing to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on . August 1, 20 Per the Resolution, the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport Harbor. In addition. the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers — Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).

Slip Length
2023-2024 Slip Rate
(per foot, per ffwnth)
20'Slip
$32.23
25'Slip
$32.38
31' Slip
$37.29
32'Slip
$40.49
34'Slip
$41.02
35'Slip
$42.59
37'Slip
$44.34
40'Slip
$50.09
45'Slip
$51-27
50'Slip
$60.59
60' Slip
$70.65
75'Slip
$80.95
The rate charged shall be the greater of the slip or the boat. ft the boat is longer than the slip it is in, the charge shall be based on the slip prke plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.

Garages S444.81 per month
Apartments $3,353.81 per month
If you have any questions, please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159, Thank you,
City of Newport Beach — Harbor Department
harbormaster(a)newr>ortt>eachca._qov
949-270-8159

q�� W P(:) 0�'
U
C,
" I -
May 17, 2022
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6. 2010). and per your slip/garage/apartment rental agreement which states that 60 days'notice must be given for any rate adjustment, we are writing to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on August 1, 2022.

Per the Resolution. the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport Harbor. In addition, the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers - Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).

Slip Lenath
2022-2023 Slip Rate
(per fbot, per month)
20' Slip
$30.59
25' Slip
31' Slip
$32-55
$35.79
32' SI!E
$37.01
34' Slip
35' Slip
$38.73
$40.30
37' Slip
$41.67
40' Slip
45' Slip
$43-96
$47-52
50' Slip
$55.70
60'Slip
75' Slip
$65-20
$76.97
The rate charged shall be the greater of the slip or the boat. If the boat is longer than the slip it is in, the charge shall be based on the slip price plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.

Garages $429.15 per month
Apartments $3,235.71 per month
If you have any questions. please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159.

Thank you,
City of Newport Beach - Harbor OppartmPrit
[email protected]
949-270-8159

,V;30RT 8EACH
lv� Ve Sa [boa Sousevard
Npwvori Oo�c". Cal Jo —a 92663
VHF Onannel 19
-2woofz"rborors
April 27, 2021
Dear Balboa Yacht Basin Tenant,
Per the City Council Resolution No. 2010-134 (December 6, 2010), and per your slip/garage/apartment rental agreement which states that 60 days' notice must be given for any rate adjustment, we are writing to inform you that the rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin will be adjusted on July 1. 2021, and will continue to do so annually on the first of July.

Per the Resolution, the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin shall be set at 100% of the average of the Newport Harbor Marina Index which is comprised of the low to moderately priced marinas in Newport Harbor. In addition, the rates for the garages and apartments shall be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers — Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim).

Slip Length 2021-2022 Slip Rate
(per fo
p!,permonth)
20' Slip $27.32
25' Slip
$28.61
31'Slip
$29-90
32' Slip
$31.30
34' Slip
$34.14
35'Slip
$34.14
37' Slip
$34.24
40'Slip
$37.75
45' Slip
$42.02
50'Slip
$46.83
60' Slip
$53.89
$59,55--
75'Sli
The rate charged shall be the greater between the slip or the boat If the boat is longer than the slip, the charge shag be based on the slip price, plus the extra lineal feet of the boat, at that same slip rate.

Garages $395-53 per month
Apartments $2.982.22 per month
If you have any question. please contact the Harbor Department at 949-270-8159.

Thank you,
City of Newport Beach - Harbor Department
harbormaster@newportbeachca go�o
949-270-8159

Public Comment - Harbor Commission Special Meeting - 02/01/2024 Dear Harbor Commissioners; Mayor; and City Council,
To address in 3-minute segments of public comment at meetings, all pertinent issues related to the 50 some odd pages of the Dec. 26, 2023 Netzer Appraisal Report, as well as the numerous other materials included with the 02-01-2024 Special Meeting agenda, would be impossible. Unfortunately, as a result, those many pages necessitate pages of response, so here goes.

First off, the "Harbor Commission Staff Report" for the February 1, 2024 Special Meeting, States:
"The rent for moorings was last adjusted in 2016 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2016-17, based on an appraisal of the offshore moorings." This seems disingenuous. I've only been an offshore mooring permit holder for a few months, but in that time, the monthly rate I pay The City has gone up. My prior understanding from City sources, was that this generally occurs about once a year, and is based on The Consumer Price Index. I dispute Staff's apparent contention, that these CPI adjustments, are not adjustments, and that none have occurred since 2016.

Selected Observations on The APPRAISAL REPORT:

The 12/26/2023 Netzer Appraisal Report, uses terms like "Assumptions"; "assuming"; "limiting conditions"; "Most probable price"; "Hypothetical sites"; "Somewhat imperfect"; etc. It states that its' conclusions are merely quote — unquote "opinion".

The preparer notes to have "personally conducted an inspection of a representative sampling of the 'offshore' moorings..."
I have however, found no reference to indicate which specific offshore moorings were inspected, or how many of these unspecified moorings, out of the approximate 731, were used in forming Netzer's "opinion"?
Was The Harbor Department involved? Did they provide transport or commentary for these mooring inspections? Either could create bias, as the Harbor Department would likely benefit from an increase of about 300 to 500% in monthly rents. 1 The Appraisal Report, in using generally vague and unspecified moorings for comparison, makes for suspect results and conclusions. Permittees are placed at a disadvantage, by having this information withheld.

The Netzer Report, on page 10, says that there are 10 offshore mooring locations throughout the harbor, plus 2 proximate to yacht clubs. That makes 12. The City provided list though, also on page 10, and the map on page 11, do not show 12, unless we're counting the anchorage, and/or the Harbor Patrol location. I find inconsistency within the report, yery concerning.

Netzer, on Pg. 15, says that "... there is no active real estate market for the sale of submerged tidelands... "
I will point out, that there is a market for Mooring Permits. Data reflecting this fact, is included within the Report, and is available on The City's website. I contend that Mooring Permit Transfers, offer a far more appropriate, accurate, and comparable data set for calculating valuations for the submerged State lands those permits grant use of.

Mooring values have historically been based on lineal foot measurements. Netzer uses both square footage, and frontage footage figures from dry land sales for valuation comparisons to submerged land. The Appraisal Report notes that 40' is the most common size of offshore mooring. It assumes that a boat on a 40' mooring, is 40' x 14'. There are very few boats with a rectangular footprint. MOST boats taper down from their "beam" (aka maximum width), to bow and stern. This makes the square footage comparisons in The Appraisal Report generally inflated.

Personally, I paid $30,000 for a 40' Offshore Mooring Permit several months back.

Netzer speculates that associated vessels are drifting over an area of 1,200 Square Feet. This would mean, that I acquired the right to lease that amount of submerged State land, for $25 per sq. ft. ($30,000 / 1,200 sq. ft. = $25 per) Also important to note, is that most of that supposed 1,200 sq. ft., is not precluded from use by other members of the public. Smaller craft, including Dinghy's; Tenders; Sabots; Paddle Boards; Stand-up Paddle Boards; Kayaks; Float Tubes; Etc., Etc., regularly transition through the space, and/or fish/swim/take photos/linger/socialize /listen to music/etc.

And please consider that the Report uses square footage value estimations of survey defined land, and permanent improvements there on, and applies that formula to the total supposed footprint a boat may drift over when moored over submerged land.

And if The City is to now contend that lineal feet, is a dimensional measurement, as the Report seems to imply, and if my 40' permitted mooring were truly the 20' by 60' Netzer concludes, by saying that there's about 10' of distance between vessels and

their mooring balls, that would equate to 160 total feet measured all the way around (20' + 20' + 60' + 60' = 160'). In this scenario, the $30k I paid, works out to $1,875 per lineal, or frontage foot (Four sides of the 20' x 60' hypothetical, rectangular dimension Netzer uses). Comparable dry land sales data cited, has much higher valuations, ranging from about $105,000, to over $280,000 per lineal, or frontage foot.

If dry land with permanent attachments to the land, were even trully comparable in value to heavily regulated submerged land, which is precluded from permanent attachments, $25 per sq. ft., and $1,875 per lineal foot, are actual, recent valuations to "own" "real property", in the form of an offshore mooring permit.

Page 15 ends

on "Market Value of Upland Property (vacant land)". Again, considering the ample data for the sale/transfer of mooring permits available, and considering that mooring permits sel I/transfer/g rant the use of property that is most comparable that type of property itself, the methodology of using dissimilar dry land sales for comparison, is unnecessary and unfair, and leads to "opinion", both flawed and inaccurate.

And developed properties onshore around here, have over time, appreciated substantially in value. In my period of interest, Mooring Permit values have not undergone increases of value at similar percentages. Also, boats generally depreciate in value, so again the comparison to dry places and permanent attachments is off. And regardless, what the dry land, and marina slips have as far as amen ities/services/ access, makes square, and/or lineal footage valuation comparisons to submerged lands, problematic at best.

The Report, on page 32, talks about a private underground market for mooring rentals, and references some advertised prices. In my experience, advertised prices, are usually not actual prices. If you don't believe me, I'll advertise here, a $20,000, very low value boat I'd sell you for that advertised price. Netzer using advertising as a data point, is inappropriate.

A Personal Historical Perspective:

I've been paying pretty close attention to mooring prices and transfers for 15+ years.

When my permit was transferred to me on October 31, 2023, 1 feel that I should have been informed by The Harbor Department, that substantial monthly rent increases were in the offing. When was the "new appraisal report for offshore mooring rental rates" initiated? Clearly, it was some time prior to Dec. 26, 2023. Why weren't those acquiring permits informed? I reasonably expected, that historical trends over a decade and a half, would continue.
3 Recent purchasers of permits would be particularly disadvantaged, were The City to increase monthly rents by the excessive amounts being proposed. I paid a Transfer Fee of $1,181.40 to have The Harbor Department assist with filling out 4 pgs. of paperwork (Code defined 75% of Annual Mooring Rent). One transfer per year is the limit, so if I don't want to, or am unable to pay in the vicinity of 300-500% more in monthly rent, I'm stuck. And when the Code would allow me to transfer the permit, the associated fee to The City, would then range from $4,327 to $5,760. This is onerous, creates harm, and will likely reduce the value and transferability of permits.

There are parties, who cannot reasonably expect to be able to keep their permits under such extreme rent increases. Some City actions, have appeared to evidence a desire to gain more control over more permits. This could be interpreted as a means to obtain those permits through revocation/confiscation. Should this come to pass, arguments could be made, that wrongful takings have occurred. I believe The City currently holds about 16 Mooring Permits. If it wants more permits, and more price control for individual moorings, it should be purchasing permits as they become available on the market.

Additional Impacts/Concerns re: Live- Aboards:

The Harbor Dept. has informed me that there are currently about 51 live aboard permits. As I understand it, more than one person could live -aboard under each permit.

Netzer uses "Residential" properties for comparison to moorings. While I don't agree with the idea that living on a boat, and living in a house, apartment, or what not, are closely comparable, I suppose that The City could claim that out of 731 offshore moorings, about 7% of them might be compared to residential property ....... IF the residences on dry land, aren't permanently attached to that land (RV; Trailer Home; Manufactured Home; Tiny Home; ADU; Etc.)
And should the proposed 300-500% monthly rent increases be approved by Mayor and Council, live-aboards would be severely affected. Some are at risk of becoming homeless. I strongly object to The City taking away some of the very last affordable means of keeping a roof over one's head here. Information for the January 23, 2024 City Council Meeting, indicated that nearly a million dollars had been spent over the previous 6 months for Homeless Support Services. The figures exclude salary and benefit amounts for two staff members, so well over a million dollars in six months was likely spent. A number of shelter beds are contracted in Costa Mesa, for $155 per day.

At what level would an increase in mooring rent revenues, be reduced by increased expenses? $155 a day, x _ potentially new homeless individuals, would seem to add up pretty quickly.
51 Crime Comparison:

While using the dinghy docks to access my mooring, I've experienced theft 3 times, and attempted theft once. This, in a span of about 3 months of trips down here. A NPB PID Officer recently told me that theft will never stop. A mooring in the same row as me, had a dinghy stolen. Thankfully, it was later recovered. A mooring one row west, had their dinghy stolen, and not recovered. I've been told of other similar instances. BYB Staff have informed me that "We do not see a lot of crime or theft at Balboa Yacht Basin", so in this regard too, moorings do not compare to BYB at a value of 24% - 34%.

City as Insureds:

And please keep in mind, that The City benefits by mandating Offshore Mooring Permitees cover City Elected Officials and Personnel on their vessel insurance policies. The City gets millions of dollars of insurance coverage for free. If Offshore Mooring Permittees aren't seen as providing some value to The City associated with that, warrantying consideration towards monthly rent amounts, drop the requirement.

Conclusion:

In closing, during my 20+ years of owning 27'— 38' vessels, I've spent time at anchor, in marina slips, at various docks, and on moorings. Getting in and out of the H Field can be quite challenging. More challenging than ANY slip or dock I've used.

I hope that each person comparing moorings to slips, is completely familiar with the many, substantial differences. My personal experience has been, that well-appointed, and accessible marina slips, are far, far more valuable. But, if The City wishes to push through the misguided idea that moorings hold 24%-34% of the value of City owned slips here, efforts to mitigate should be made. We can address those in future proceedings.

Thank you,
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
[email protected]
January 31, 2024

Newport Beach City Council Meeting 05/14/2024 — Public Comment Re: Yacht Club Lease Rate Inquiries:

Mayor and Council,
It's said that The Harbormaster indicated at a Yacht Club function, that they would not be subject to the 300, to over 500% increase in mooring fees under the Harbor Commission Recommendation of 04/10/2024. Verification of Yacht Clubs being exempted, or otherwise insulated from the fee increases has been sought a number of times. Yesterday, Harbor Commission Chair Sculley e-mailed me, saying:
"We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission isfor mooring permittees as they are defined in Title] 7 of the Municipal Code"
The apparent reluctance of City personnel to respond with a simple "yes" or "no", is throwing up all kids of red flags for me. I suspect that each of you is aware, of The State Lands, and California Coastal Commission's high level of concern about the existing rate disparity in Newport Harbor, wherein mooring permit holders currently pay multiple times more in rents/fees, yet The Harbor Commission suggests increasing the divide even further, while apparently exempting Yacht Clubs, when some on the Commission are equity members in the Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits there.

Additionally, some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the recommendation, are pier permit holders, who pay much lower rates than mooring permitees.

These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been previously disclosed.

After a period of intimate involvement, The Harbormaster eventually recused himself, and has said "discussions may affect mefinancially". It's clear to me, that a number of other involved parties suffer from similar conflict, and should not have participated in the process.

Recusal as an afterthought, does not correct prior, flawed process.

As you go into Closed Session to discuss "ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", I hope that you can see beyond the cherry picking of facts, and obfuscation that's preceded the Harbor Commission's recommendation.

Please recognize the wrongful conduct that has brought us to this point, and consider how much additional inconvenience and expense you may subject civil servants, citizens, and taxpayers to, in trying to defend what has transpired to date.

EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
[email protected]

City Council Meeting, June 11, 2024
Public Comment Re:

Are Yacht Clubs; Lido Isle Community
Association; or others,
Exempted or otherwise
Insulated/Immune from Mooring
fee/rent increases,
under pending Harbor Commission
Recommendation:
(14 pgs. In Reverse Chronological Order)

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilwoman Grant,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

I hope that you have a wonderful trip to Japan. Just prior the last regular Council Meeting, I'd been enjoying the Sister City sculpture.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilwoman Kleiman
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Avery,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Blom,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Stapleton,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Councilman Weigand,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

I hope that you enjoy your upcoming trip to Japan. Just prior the 05/28/2024 Meeting, I'd been admiring the related sculpture.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Inquiry
Mayor O'Neill,
I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees1rates for Mooring Permits, are fees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heid/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz

City of Newport Beach
May 28, 2024
In response to Councilmember Weigand's concern for the impact of the project during the summer months, Public Works Director Webb explained the approach to prioritize the Newport Elementary School area and return in September for the remaining areas.

Motion by Councilmember Weigand, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c), Class 1 (maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) approve the project plans and specifications; c) approve Budget Amendment No. 24-078 appropriating $42,000 in new revenue and expenditures from Orange County Sanitation District to Account No. 13501-980000-22R11; d) award Contract No. 8833-2 to R.J. Noble Company for the total bid price of $5,119,060 for the Balboa Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and 32nd Street Pavement Rehabilitation project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and e) establish a contingency of $512,000 (approximately 10% of total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract.

Jim Mosher suggested informing the public of the types of pedestrian safety improvements being proposed since it might be more applicable along Balboa Bdklevard in the future.

Public Works Director Webb relayed the safety enh cements Atat are being planned.

The motion carried unanimously. k
XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
George Hylkema discussed tideland fees in the Harbor and provided a handout.

Adam Leverenz noted he has not received a response to his inquiiy on whether yacht clubs will be exempted from mooring holding fee increases or to see the Harbor Commission's recommendation they will be making to Council, recited four reliable sources the City could use to evaluate mooring rates, and asked that Council beco �i informed about permit harbor rates.

Jim Mosher announced the Coffee with the Mayor event on May 31, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and inquired about the address.

Mayor O'Neill stated that the Coffee with the Mayor event will take place at the Starbucks at 377 East Coast Highway.

XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING

17. Resolution No. 2024-32: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency for the City's Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments (PA2022-0245)
Assistant City Manager Jurjis introduced Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo, provided background, and indicated that, if Council approves the resolution, a notice will be sent to the Airport Land Use Commission and staff will return to the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting to hold a a public hearing and review the housing implementation documents.

Mayor O'Neill recognized and appreciated the work on this matter by staff and noted shared concerns by the public and Council about the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process.

In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that Huntington Beach was unsuccessful in challenging the State on the RHNA process. Councilmember Grant added that other cities have also been unsuccessful.

Mayor ONeill opened the public hearing.

Volume 66 - Page 107

City of Newport Beach
May 14, 2024
111. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Adam Leverenz took issue that yacht clubs are being exempt from the mooring fee increases recommended by the Harbor Commission, noted participants in the process who have financial interests, and asked Council to consider during the Closed Session the wrongful conduct leading up to this point and the inconvenience, time, and expense to defend the position.

Bill Powers provided a handout and addressed the formula for the phasing and the 24% indexing to the Balboa Yacht Basin, and wondered if a working committee would be helpful to form.

Ann Stenton, President of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA), expressed that she felt there was a lack of direct and real dialogue with the Harbor Commission regarding the proposed mooring rate increases and suggested there be a global rate study. She also proposed meeting with the City Manager or Mayor to review concerns and develop a mutually beneficial solution.

IV. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPdSURE TO LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2) (e)(3)): 1 matter
On Aprill 22, 2024, Elise M. Kern with the law firm of Palmieri, 1knnessey & Leifer, LLP, confirmed that Mr. Chris Benzen is inclined to pursue litigation against the-cid of Newport Beach if the City Council increases the rent for moorings, as recommended by the HaFbor Commission. A copy of the e-mail from Ms. Kern is on file with the City Clerk located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, and is available blic inspection pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.5. AMW IL
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PRO
(Government Code § 54956.8): lAp
Property: A portion ofItTe0hphu-blic right- of-lWadi acent to 929 944 Via Lido Nord (423-281-10) (approximately 845 square feet). .0
Zurich Circle (423-282-04) and
City Negotiators: Seimone Jurjis, As ant City Manager, and Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator.

I
Negotiating Parties: Palmer Luckey on behalf of the 929 Zurich Circle Trust and the 944 Via Lido Nord Trust.

Under Negotiation: Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment.

V. RECESSED - 4:48 p.m.

VI. RECONVENED AT 6:01 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
VII. ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Brad Avery, Councilmember Noah Blom, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Erik Weigand Excused: Councilmember Robyn Grant
VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Harp announced that no reportable actions were taken.

Ix. INVOCATION - Mayor O'Neill
X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Blom
Volume 66 - Page 91

Newport Beach City Council Meeting 05/14/2024 — Public Comment Re: Yacht Club Lease Rate Inquiries:

Additionally, some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the recommendation, are pier permit holders, who pay much lower rates than mooring permitees.

These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been previously disclosed.

Recusal as an afterthought, does not correct prior, flawed process.

EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
[email protected]

From: Ad lever
Sent: May 07, 2024 2:49 P M
To: Blank, Paul
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day Mr. Blank,
I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear answer has seemed elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
From: Blank, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Ad lever ; Wooding, Lauren
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] Subject: RE: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Mr. Leverenz:

As a mooring permittee, these discussions may affect me financially.

As you have likely observed, I am not participating in the proceedings and therefore do not have any information for you. I am forwarding your question to Lauren Wood i ng-Whitlinger, the Real Property Administrator for the City.

You may also wish to address your question to the Harbor Commission Chair, Steve Scully, or the ad hoc committee Chair, Ira Beer.

Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663

From: Ad lever
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 11:17 AM
To: Scully, Steve ; Beer, Ira ; Wooding, Lauren

Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; ExecutiveStaff @Coastal ; Kate. H uckel bridge@ coastal. ca.gov ; [email protected] ; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal ; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal ;
[email protected]
Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day,
Harbormaster Paul Blank has directed me to Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Steve Sculley; Vice - Chair Ira Beer, and Real Property and Asset Management Program manager Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, in relation to the following inquiry made to him:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear answer has seemed elusive.

Thank you,
Adam Leverenz"
From: Scully, Steve
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:07 PM
To: Ad lever ; Beer, Ira ; Wooding, Lauren

Regards,
Steve Scully
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
[email protected]
909-322-2893

From: Ad lever
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:39 AM
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; ExecutiveStaff @Coastal ; Kate. [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal ; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]

Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Harbor Commission Chair Scully,
I had thought that:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?"
Was a simple "yes" or "no" question. If you feel you have "answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for mooring permittees as they are defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code", and multiple members of the public have not been able to clecern a clear answer through The Harbor Commission's obfuscation, perhaps you could show the candor to answer the simple question, with a simple yes or no. I think tacit obstruction is not helpful.

Regards,
Adam Leverenz

From: Ad lever
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; ExecutiveStaff @Coastal ; Kate. H uckel bridge@coasta Lca.gov ; [email protected] ; Spencer,
Amrita@Coastal ; [email protected]
; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents
Good day,
I had thought that with Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Scully's May 13, 2024 reply below, if I read through the Newport Beach Harbor Code again, I would find the answer to my question:
"I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to feeslratesfor Mooring Permits, arefees1rates that will be applied to those Moorings heldlmanaged under Yacht Club stewardship?"
However, I do not see Chair Sculley's stated "mooring permittee " listed under "Definitions" in the Code. A search indicates that the term "mooring permittee ", appears 48 times. None of those seem to define the term though. "Mooring" and "Permittee" are defined separately:
"Title 17
Definitions:

7. Mooring. The term "mooring" shall mean a
device consisting of afloating buoy or other object
that is secured to the harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel and includes
any apparatus used to secure a vessel in Newport
Harbor which is not carried aboard such vessel as
regular equipment when under way.

2. Permittee(s). The term '�permittee(s) "shall be
theperson or entity who holds a validly issuedpermit
under any provision of this title. Permittee(s)
shall also include licensee(s), except in cases where
such definition would conflict with another provision
of this title. FF
A clear and precise yes or no answer, on whether or not the recommended rate increases apply to moorings held by Yacht clubs; Lido Island Association; et al., is very important. There have been indications that they are exempt, or otherwise insulated/immune. I would hope that the City can be compelled to provide a clear answer. Apparently, I'm not very compelling in this regard. I hope that recipients of this e-mail may be more so, and will elicit clarity.

Thank you so much,
Adam Leverenz

Yacht Club Mooring Presentation
April 8th, 2024 6:00 PM
Presentation

1. Discrimination

2. Faulty Appraisal

3.Conflict of Interest Concerns

$1,600.00
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
$ 1, 000. 00
$800.00
$600.00
$400.00
$285
�357
Monthly Rates - Exiist�ng vs HC Recommendation
E Current E Recommendation
M.
$553
$727
$1,017
$194
$200.00 01
25 30 35 40 45 50 60
Mooring Length
$1,244
70 $1,422
$1,333
$1,60D
$L689
75 so
90 95
2 Discrimination
l.Political

2.USE

3.Economic

Political Discrimination
A majority of mooring permits are
held by residents that cannot vote
in Newport Beach
City Council Districts
pom
City ot Newport Beoch
,
FffeCi Y; April 2 1, 2o2 2
C.Y f � 1—h
G15 DlMn—
Ad—f.d b, rdl—_ 4� 2022-7
ZV2/2M4
58%
Compared to docks, a majority in the green box
Mooring Permit Holder City of Residence
.* NEWPORT BEACH iwd' OTHER OTY
42%
M

Use Discrimination
The California State Lands Act
CHAPTER 74
An act relating to tide and submerged lands in the City of Newport Beach, and in this connection repealing Chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1919, Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927, Chapter 142 of the Statutes of 192% Chapter ILE.74 of the Statutes of 1929, Chapter 813 of the Statutes of 1929, ,md Chapter 200 of the Statutes of 1931, and declaring the urge-acy thereof, to take effect ixnmediately. [Approved by Governor Apri) 6,1978. Filed with
Secretary of State April 7, 1978.1
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation,, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the c ity or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or I
charges for any use or service in connection therewith.

It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls,, or for any use.. 11 Why are we only looking at the Moorings? Why aren't they appraising all of the uses at the same time? This is "use" discrimination.

Why didn't the appraisal look at single point moorings? Why did they not look at the docks? Are the BYC and Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs, as organizations who pay the city directly for mooring rents, included in this rate increase? Why didn't the appraisal include rents charged at the Newport Aquatic Center?

It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls, or for any use0. 11 Dock
-25' Power Boat + -19' Duffy
Residential Pier Permits (
-i�7 Residential Pier Perinit
Address: 619 36TH ST
Permit Area Total Square Footage: 190
Pier is not shared by more than one fesident.
&n total square footag-e.

Permit Fee
CuTrent Year. $143.31
Pier Permit Exhibit
-$12.00 / Month
Mooring
-34' Sail boat
$138.00 / Month
Image sources: https://nbgis.newportbeachca.gov/NewportHTML5Viewer/?viewer=pierpermitsinfo

-5
I
C3
CO
3:
-10
It ..no discrimination in rates, tolls, or for any use0. 11

WAMENOWO
Dock
$12/month
4 4-f
OL
Mooring
$138/month

1.F
(double -point)
Image sources: https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/glossary https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/mooring-permittees

S6w
s5w
S4W
S300
S200
S100
S-
Economic Discrimination
$12
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Monthly Race
Dock v Mooring
$138
Existing 40'
Mooring
$481
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
4 $7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$144
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Annual
Dock v Mooring
$11656
Existing 40'
Mooring
$51770
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
10 $70,GW
$60,000
S50,000
W,000
S30,000
S20,000
S10,000
$17440
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Ten Years
Dock v Mooring
$167560
Existing 40'
Mooring
$57.f696
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
11 S35D,DW
S30D,DW
S250,000
S200,000
S150,000
S100,000
$50,M@
$7P200
Dock
(190 sq ft)
Fifty Years
Dock v Mooring
$82Y800
Existing 40'
Mooring
$288P480
Proposed 40'
Mooring Rate
12 What would be fair?
Let's just apply the current dock system (resolution 2015-10) to moorings. Eliminate the It use" discrimination RESOLUTION NO. 2015-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADJUSTING THE

RENTAL CALCULATION AND APPROVING A REVISED

MODEL PERMIT TEMPLATE FOR RESIDENTIAL PIERS

LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the City Council considered, at its regularly scheduled study session, the current status of the City's tidelands regulations and rents for moofings, commercial piers and residential piers and directed staff to bring back certain amendments contained in this resolution to improve the tidelands rent process; AYES: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Petros, Council MembeF Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tern Dixon
NAYS: Council Member Curry
RECUSED: Council Member Duffield, Mayor Selich
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this I 1�h day of February, 2015.
13 January 27, 2015
Agenda Item No. SS3
0 Harbor Fees.

Moorings, Commercial iers,
0 Residential Piers
14 Residential Pier Fees
Pre-2013
Residential Piers were charged a flat rate ($100) regardless of size.

Rertals prohibited
2013 Forward
Residential Pier Permittees charged proportionate to dock size.

Rentals allowed. If a person rents out his/her dock, they pay the Small Marina Rental Rate (13 do so now)
Average permit fee applied to piers over Public Trust Lands (City) only.

Residential Pier "Footprint" 1
L
Newport Beach Approach
PermitArea-.

The footprint of the pier and
gangway.

Doesn't include the water
Unless a "U" dock
Permit Rate-
$0.525/SF/year (by 2017)
Choice of annual or
longer -term permit
Current Terms
Simplified Permit (I page)
HOAs classified as residential
unless they rent to non-
members
Rental to 3rd parties allowed
10 Year permit available
Annual Fee: Ramps up to
SO.525 per square foot over
tidelands
2013
$0.129
per
sq/ft
2014
$0.228
per
sq/ft
Note: These are average 2015
$0.327
per
sq/ft
ramp -up rates... 2016
$0.426
per
sq/ft
2017
$0.525
per
sq/ft

40' Mooring "Footprint"
How would that look?
Total Area of one Mooring Ball = 3 sq. ft.

Total Area of two balls = 3 x 2 = 6 sq. ft.

Total Area of stringer line = 40' x floats 4" = 13 sq. ft.

Round the decimals to equal 20 sq. ft.

Multiply the 20 sq. ft. by the 0.525 per sq. ft. = $10.50 Apply the mooring to slip ration of 24% x $10.50 = $2.52 This is the annual rent for a 40' mooring: $2.52

Common Rebuttals

1.Property Taxes

2.Maintenance

3.No other use

Property laxes
Bayfront Property with Dock Peninsula Home without Dock a zillow
,pO' Edit V S&ve ,,;�> Share More
3 bd I ba 1,079 sqft
509 36th St, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Off-marke-t
ZesCmate�l: $2,875,800 Rent Zestimate@: $4,749
- --- -------------------------
Est. refi payment: $18,565/mo 0 Refinance your loan
Homevalue Ownertools Homedetails Neighborhood dL-tails
Price history
Price hfstory is unavailable.

Public tax history
year Property taxes Tax assessment
2 0 12 -- $6,247 +1.8% $566,669 +211q
a Zillow
,�P E d it (,-� Save r,> 5 h a re o- IM o re
2 bd 1 ba 721 sqft
506 Clubhouse Ave, Newport BeaChr CA 92663
a Off-marke-t
Zest-�rnate-'�O:$4,344,900 Rentze-stimate-(�':$13,264
Est. refi payment: S28,048/mo 0 Refinance your loan
Homevalue Ownertool�s Hamedetalls Neighborhood details
--, Show more
Public tax history
Year Property taxes Tax assessment
-) n
..23 $18r538 +36.4% $1,716,273 437.9%
We all pay property taxes, so it"s irrelevant to the discussion, due to Prop 13, taxes paid relevant to the assessed value at time of sale

Maintenance
Maintenance (50 Years): $10,000
Total: $10,000
6 -10
_1C
Reg. Biannual Maintenance (50 Years): $50,000
Total: $50,000
I-f
(double -point)
Source: Eric Langenbach retired equipment operator, marine construction. 19

No Other Use
ov
Yes, you can easily construct marina style slips in front of private property as seen in the above images. Entranceways, can be constructed on public property at the street ends

These are the same USE..

A boat occupies the same space above the tidelands regardless of it's position in the Harbor _X&WCrXA
C:L
(1) -5
C3
L_
C)
CO
10 Dock
L
1 C
Mooring
(double -point) w
Image sources: https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/glossarV 21 https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/mooring-permittees

Our Story
We are everyday people: veterans,, teachers, postmen, pastors, captains, fishermen, sailorsl and recreational boaters.

Increases to mooring fee's will have dramatic impacts on the many users of the Harbor.

This will force many liveaboards to become homeless. Other neighboring Harbors will not be able to accommodate the mass migration of boats that will be forced out of Newport Harbor.

There
are many retiree's
that
are
living on a
fixed
income and
to raise rates
by 400-
500%
would
absolutely
decimate
any money they
set aside
for mooring rent.

etze r

Possible Conflicts of Interest?

1.Objective and Scope of RFP 21-53

2.Fifty Year, ZERO FEE, Ground Lease

3.1nterest Bearing Loan

Is there a conflict of interest?
The Fundamentals of a Conflict of Interest Code
A conflict of interest code must:
-D Provide reasonable assurance that all foreseeable potential conflict of interest situations will be disclosed or prevented-,
9 Provide to each affected person a clear and specific statement of his or her duties under the conflict of interest code; and
* Adequately differentiate between designated employees with different powers and responsibilities. https://www.f ppc.ca.gov/1ea rn/ru I es-on-conf I ict-of-i nterest-codes. htm I

NEWPORT BEACH
Sear& in dDCUMent 0
CltyCouncli > CoundlMeetings > 2019 > OV22/2019 > AgendaPacket > 00-Non-Agenda-NAC-PowerPoirUHandout 5 t 4, �75 4� Q, G) G) ViewplaIntext
Re: Seeking Clarification/Additional Information
From: Jon Van Cleave [email protected])
To.- m ered ithcag le@ sbc 9 1 oba I net
C C: vets4 pets@ aol.corn; seskinner@rne-corn, bruce.'�bbetson@g�-nall.coi-n;i'[email protected]; gcollins@craigre,31tygroup.com; [email protected]; [email protected]:
[email protected]
Date. Sunday, October 1, 2017, 5:17 PM PDT
0*��
Meredith,
I have received YOUr additional request and comments.

Due to the current atmosphere surrOUnding the NAC Board of Directors activities, a response to you wil1l necessarily need to come from a lawyer representing the NAC since it involves an Investigation into what occurred and how those facts are interpreted based on the law in this area, There has been push back from other Board members regarding my plan to have Snell and Wilmer respond to you on behalf of the NAC. Therefore, a response will have to wait until the Board can agree on what lawyer will be authorized to prepare the response. This would be the only way to make sure we get the analysis right the first time,
"T.

What is the NAC?
a
Newport Aquatic Center

Property Depiction
t
? X
Promises
Depiction
W

NAC official website — 1/26/24
NAC

CALIFORM&USA
California Secretary of State website. Filing date 1/2/24

NAC GIFT CARDS RESOURCES PROGRAMS NAC RACE RESULTS THINGS TO DO CALENDAR CAMPS CONTACT James Netzer - Secretary
Principal Netzer and Associates Real Estate AppraisaL and Con5u(ting Jim's wife is a member of the NAC Women's Outrigger Team and both his son and daughter were members of the NAC Junior Rowing Team. His daughter went on to be an assistant coach in the Junior Rowing program.
)[email protected]
Entity Details
Corporation Name NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
Entity No. 1067402
Formed In CALIFORNIA
Street Address of California PrincipaJ Office of Corporation Street Address of CaJifornia Office I WHITECLIFFS DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Mailirg Address Of CDi-poration
Mailing Address 1 WHITECLIFFS DR
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Attention
Officers
Officer Name
Officer Address
Position(s)
James Netzer
306 ESTHER ST
COSTA MESA, CA 92627
Sec retary
29 Possible Conflicts of Interest?

1.0bjective and Scope of RFP 21-53

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�k
0A
k I
V�S]E p
Fo
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 21-53

ON -SHORE & OFF -SHORE MOORING APPRAISALS
AND

ON -CALL TIDELANDS APPRAISAL SERVICES
31 RFP No. 21-53

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Area Description
Scope of Services )
In RFP 21-53, the NAC is listed as apart of
the projects' Area Description
Newport Harbor is formed by the Balboa Peninsula on the south and the mainland on the north and extends inland to Jamboree Road and the north end of the Upper Newport Bay (Back Bay). The primary focus of this assignment is the Lower Newport Bay, which is generally defined as the water area south of the Coast Highway Bridge near the intersection of Coast Highway and Dover Drive. Traditionally, most of the boating activity within the harbor is concentrated in the Lower Bay as most of the Back Bay is an ecological preserve with limited boating facilities (Newport Dunes, Newport Aquatic Center, UCI Rowing base, Bayside Village and Dover Shores). The Balboa Peninsula consists of all the contiguous land east of 45th Street extending to Peninsula Point and the jetty at the mouth of Newport Harbor. The south side of the Peninsula consists of sandy beaches on the Pacific Ocean while the north side of the Peninsula forms the southern perimeter of Newport Harbor.
32 RFP No. 21-53 1
Oboective and Project Scope
The purpose of this study is to investigate and provide appropriate analysis to determine the Fee Simple Interest in the City owned on -shore and off -shore moorings. and the resulting Fair Market Rent to charge mooring permittees. Boaters within Newport Harbor have a variety of options to store their boats close -to or on the waters of Newport Harbor., The City's on -shore and off -shore moorings should be compared to all other options around the harbor, with adjustments rnade in consideration of the amenities that may be offered at moorings versus other locations. Locations to review for comparlson 'Include ma ri n as, yacht cl u bs. d ry docks.. o n la nd d i ng hy sto ra g e. th e N ewport Aq u atic Ce nter an d the Dunes Waterfront Resort.

RFP 21-53, explicitly states that the NAC is a location to review for comparison

Lets search the 2023 Netzer Offshore Mooring Appraisal for the words "Newport Aquatic Center" 0 jea rcfk
ArrB nZe Wi rKkym
Looking For:
n-ewp o rt aq uati c center i n the cu rre nt d o cu ment R--�LE:
1 d o cu rn-ent(s) with 1 i nsta n c-e(s)
Only one instance of the words "Newport
aquatic center" were found in the entire
appraisal report. And it was the exact copy
and paste of the area description found in
the RFP 21-53. So they weren't even Netzer's
own words.

ARE, A DESCRIPTION
Newport Harbor is the focal point of the incorporated city of Newport Beach, which is located in coastal Orange County approximately 10 miles southwest of the Santa AM CiViC Center. The coastal city was incorporated on September 1, 1906. The U.S. Census Bureau reports an estimated population of 85,239 persons as of April 2020, an increase from 85,186 persons as of the 2010 Census. According to the City Chamber of Commerce, the influx of the tourist population during the summer months increaws the population to over 100,000 persons.

Newport Beach is located 85 miles north of San Diego, 14 miles south of Long Beach and 50 miles from downtown Los Angeles. The City's elevation ranges from sea level to 691 feet. With the annexation of Newport Coast, the City is oomprised of approximately 25 square miles of land area, approximately 25.5 square miles bay, harbor and ocean waters for a total area of approximately

50.5 square miles. The city has 6.1 miles of ocean frontage and 25.4 miles of harbor frontage.

Newport Harbor is one of the largest pleasure craft harbors on the West Coast and is home to approximately 9,900 boats, 1,230 piers, 2,330 commercial slips and side ties and 1,160 moorings.

Newport Harbor is formed by the Balboa Peninsula on south and the mainland on the north and extends inland to Jamboree Road and the north end of the Upper Newport Bay (Back Bay). The primary focus of this assignment is the Lower Newport Bay, which is generally defined as the water area south of the Coast Highway Bridge near the intersection of Coast Highway and Dover Drive. Traditionally, most of the boating activity within the harbor is concentrated in the Lower 9 Newport HarborOffshore Moorings
Newport Beach, California December 16,2023 NETZER & ASSOCIATES Day as most of the Back Bay is an ecological preserve with limited boating facilities (Newport Dunes, Newport Aquatic Center, U.C.I. Rowing base, Bayside Village and Dover Shores). The Balboa Peninsula consists of all the contiguous land east of 43' Street extending to Peninsula Point and the jetty at the mouth of Newport Harbor. The south side of the Peninsula consists of sandy beaches on the Pacific Ocmn while the north side of the Peninsula forms the southern perimrt,,-r of Newport Harbor.

APPRAISAL REPORT

FAIR MARKET RENT

OFFSHORE MOORINGS

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

DATE OF VALUE
DECEMBER26,2023

PREPARED FOR

LAUREN WOODING WHITLINGER

REAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR
4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
IiEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660

PREPARED BY

NETZER & ASSOCIATES
E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 206
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627
FILE NO. 2023-025
34 Possible Conflicts of Interest?

2.Fifty Year, ZERO FEE, Ground Lease

NAC Board Meeting Minutes — 1/18/16

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER) INC., a California non-profit Corporation
Date: January 18, 2016
Time: 6:30 Pm
Place: Conference Room at the NAC
Board Members Present:

Dr. William A. Grant, 11
Ion Van Cleave
Greg Collins
Dave Girling
Susan Skinner
Jim Netzer
Linda Ilay
Bruce lbbetson

NAC Board Meeting Minutes
Jim is added to the Finance Committee

NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER

MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
2-16-16
Meeting was called to order at 6:43 pm. by Bill Grant.

Quorum met, Susan Skinner is on her way.

Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Greg Collins
Jon Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girling via speaker phone
Susan Skinner - 7:34 arrived
Since the State rules are that the Members of the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee must not overlap, all agree that Dave is therefore removed from the Finance Committee and Jim is added as a member of the Finance Committee. 37 NAC Board Meeting Minutes
February Meeting

NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER

MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
2-16-16
Meeting was called to order at 6:43 prn by Bill GranL
Quorum met, Susan Skinner is on her way.

Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Creg Collins
)on Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girfing via speaker phone
Susan Skinner - 7 -.3 4 arrived
Since the State rules are that the Members of the Finance Committee and the Audit Jim is added to the Finance Committee Committee must not overlap, all agree that Dave is therefore removed from the Finance Committee and Jim is added as a member of the Finance Committee.

Jim is also the Chair of Facilities Management
Jim is providing updates on the NAC soon to
Be expiring Ground Lease with the City of
Newport Beach
Facilities Management - chair. Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim will add to the Facilities Mission Statement that "non -board members" added to the Committee require approval by the Board.

Jim's update on ground lease... Draft ready for review the end of this week, then to planning and attorney, a couple of weeks and then back ... —30 days. 38

NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 3-15-16
LOCATION: NAC

MEETING AGENDA
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:43
Quorum met.

Roll Call
Bruce lbbetson
Jim Netzer
Greg Collins
Jon Van Cleave
Bill Grant
Dave Girling
YaYa Hav
As the months go by, Jim Netzer continues to
Provide updates to the progress of renewing the
no -fee ground lease with the city.

Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim,, Gre& Bruce
Bill Netzer reported on parking lot progress. Stripe the handicap spaces and install signs. Slurry will be scheduled based on weather. 79 regular spaces, 4 handicap spaces.

Question was raised on speed bump by the stop sign. Billy would like to reinstall the speed bump close to stop sign, but it might be city property. Contact Shawn at the city to see what the recommendation would be as far as speed bump placement.

Ground Lease has been drafted and in approval process with the City. Lease is for 55 years. Still up in the air for how to submit for council approval.

NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 4-20-16

LOCATION- NAC

MEETING AGENDA
Next month, another update. Who is Lauren Wooding?
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call Facilities Management - chair: Jim
Meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm by Bill Grant. current members; Jim, Greg, Bruce Quorum met. Jim gave update from Lauren Wooding on lease. Tom, a contact of jim's, will take a look at the extension to review.

Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce lbbetson
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Jon Van Cleave
Linda Hay (YaYa)
Susan Skinner - Call In

NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 5-17-16
LOCATION: NAC
6:30 Prn Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call
Meeting was called to order at 7:13 pm by Bill Grant.

Quorum met.

Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce lbbetson
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Ion Van Cleave
Linda Hay (YaYa)
Susan Skinner
Another month goes by and another update from Jim
Netzer
Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim reviewed letter from city. Sean said once the proposed lease reaches the City Attorney, doesn't take that long. Sean and Laura will be at the meeting. Will be on Consent Calendar. If it gets pulled, it would go to a Study Session first. 41 NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on B-16-16
LOCATION: NAC
6:30 pm Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call
Meeting was called to order at 7:13 pm by Bill Grant.

Quorum met.

Roll Call
Bill Grant
Greg Collins
Jim Netzer
Ion Van Cleave
Donna Warwick
Steve Patterson
YaYa Hay (call in)
Next update, Jim says that it has made the
stage where the City Attorney reviews it.

Who was the City Attorney at that time?
Same City Attorney we have today. Surely,
he knew Netzer was a NAC Board Member.

Facilities Management - chair: Jim
current members: Jim, Greg, Bruce
Jim reported that the ground lease has been approved by the County and it is now being reviewed by the City Attorney.
42 NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 10-18-16
LOCATION: NAC

MEETING MINUTES
Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:40 pm by Bill Grant.

Quorum was met,
Roll Call: Bill Grant, Bruce lbbetson, Greg Collins, Donna Warwick, Jim Netzer, Jon Van Cleave, Steve Patterson, Susan Skinner, YaYa Hay
The ground lease has now made it Facilities Management - jim� through the City Attorney.

Report submitted Facilities Management via e-mail for BoD review. The Re -draft of the Ground Lease has made it through the City Attorney's office. Have been getting complaints about parking after hours in the public parking lot. See Jim's e-mailed report. Jim is working with Laura Detwieler on the "sea to mountain" bill. Bill designed to create more open space and passive use of land. Doesn't look like it will change any of the current uses relating to the NAC.
43 NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING on 11-22-16
LOCATION: NAC

MEETING MINUTES
Call Meeting to Order
Meeting was called to order at 6:44 pm by Bill Grant.

Quorum was met.

Roll Call
Bill Grant
Bruce Ibbetson
Donna Warwick
Jim Netzer
Jon Van Cleave
Steve Patterson
Susan Skinner
YaYa Hay
Interesting items to note while reviewing
the Board of Director Meeting Minutes.

Netzer clearly knows the going ons of the
harbor.

In this meeting minute, Netzer appears to
know that the contractor working on the
Bay Club is looking for somewhere to put
sand.

Note: This is early stage discussion only. Dredging (RPG54) blanket permit.

Contractor that is doing major projects (like Bay Club) is looking for a site to deposit good sand. Have a conversation to 'have a new beach' with the reclaimed dredging sand. Jim Netzer working on this project.
01 Newport Aquatic Center
Board of Directors Meeting Minutes In this meeting minute, Netzer appears to know that the 1/17/2017 City is getting flack from environmental groups about the location that the City is proposing to put the new trash All Directors in attendance. water wheel.

It looks like there might be a quid -pro -quo?
Facility Management
0 Sign that faces the parking lot that says "Respect our neighbors, drive the speed limit, thank you from NAC"
City is still working on the bollard by the entrance gate to close off the entrance but not the exit Water Wheel — proposing one in NB, getting flack from environmentalist because they want to put it up by Jamboree
* Jim is going to meeting about maybe getting it by NAC instead and get a new dock * My Recycler — 14 year old from CdM, Jim meeting with him to get recycling bins at NAC * Met with member about possibly increasing boat storage 45 Newport Aquatic Center — Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting 2/2812017
— Attendance: Bi Ily, Kirste n, Steve, Greg, Bruce, Donna, Bill Gra nt, JVC, Ma Iia, Pat E
Facilities Management
9 Boat Storage Increase — when and by how much?
c) It will be on the individua I's anniversary date
o Steve and Jim are drafting th-e explanation letter
a JVC - in state of CA, any contract over $500 needs to be in writing a Boat storage agreement is not as ctear as it should be c The arnount of spots in the boathouse were updated on Jim's analysis o Mallia will Oet 2016 actuals for boat storage income and will pinpoint the last increase o VOTE- 100% f ncrease on a nn iversa ry of member's contract a nd April 1, 2017 start date (March 151 h invoices a re se nt), Steve a nd Jim will ma rket
0 This is of interest. Is Jim involved with the setting of rates for boat storage at the NAC? Would this be an option for the public to store boats in the harbor? Isn't the objective of the appraisal to be used to adjust rates for boat storage on offshore moorings in the same harbor?
If the NAC is an option for boat storage and offshore moorings are an option for boat storage? Makes you wonder, wouldn't these two things be in conflict with each other?

Newport Aquatic Center — Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting DATE: 3/28/2017
TIME: 7:00 pm

ATTENDEES
Members Present: Bill, Greg, Kirsten, Susan, Jim, Bruce, Donna, Steve Members Not Present: Jon
Staff: Billy, Malia

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Ground Lease — should have something in 2-3 weeks
Bollard will be put in May 8-9
Recycling —they are picking up every weekend, will try to get a couple more bins Property assessment report — Greg, Jim and Bruce will meet Great news! Looks like they may be weeks away from getting the ground lease

Oh no. What's this?
DailyPilot
NEWS
Schism over finances and leadership
makes for troubled waters at Newport
Aquatic Ccntcr

BY HILLARY DAVIS I STAFF WRITER
SEPT. 25, 2013 6:05 PM PT
Newport Aquatic Center faces
questions of financial
mismanagement
Scoff M. Reid
PUBLISHED Oct<)ber 5. 2018 at 5-22 p.rr. I JPDATED- November 16, 2018 at 4:38 p.m.

Olympics, Sports
M

Let's take a pause on this possible conflict for
a moment..

Possible Conflicts of Interest?

3.1nterest Bearing Loan

CITY OF NFWPORT grACH
N-11 e\vpo,�� 'W LIviC Cwvt� Drim
INewport ".,h, ca if—i. 92EM
"'04-MI 1 949=35 PAX
�mpth�A�h��
'n
U
09 February 14, 2019
February 14, 2019
Sent via U.S. Mail
Board of Directors
Newperl Aquatic Center
One Whited As Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re� Management of the Newport Aquatic Center
To the Board of Directors
I write to you on behalf of the City of Newport Beach ("City") to express the City's concern regarding the allegations made by community members regarding the management of the Newport Aquatic Center ("NAC"). While numerous allegations have been made, one of the most important issues for the City relates to the governance of the NAC,
Although the City does not manage the programs offered by the NAC, ensuring limited public resources are being appropriately managed is a critical issue forthe City. To ensure effective management, the City first analyzes whether the entity managing a public asset for public use is complying with the documents governing its operations.

As you know, there have been allegations the NAC does not have the requisite number of Directors set forth in the NAC's By -Laws dated August 2C, 2014 ("By - Laws"). and the Facilities Management Plan ("FUIP") dated January 16, 1998.

Specifically, according to the By -Laws, the NAC Board of Directors ". . . shall consist of at least 8 but not more then 20 Directors until changed by amendment to these By -Laws.' Simila r[y, the FMP provdes in perfineni part that '[tlhe Aquatic Center Board of Directors is composed of nine (9) members " Based on the infc
of Directors has ti Sincerely,
FIVIFI. Having the
the City hereby r(
Urectors� and (21
correcting this del
aron Harp
City Attorney
City Attorney, Aaron Harp, writes a certified letter to the Board of Directors at the NAC expressing concern over allegations.

To the Board of Directors:

I wrille to you on behalf of the C4 of Newport Beach �"City") to express ihe City's ' s
concern regarding the allegations made by community members regarding tjhe managernent of the NewportAquatic Center ("INAC"). While numerous allegations have been made, one of the most important �ssues for the Gity relates to the governance of the NAC,
As you know, th ' e NAC's lease ("Ground Lease") with the City for the use of the property ("Property") will expire on October 27, 2023. When the City Council considers whether to enter into a new lease, or extend the term of the Ground Lease, the City Council will consider: (1) the process utilized by the NAG to select the Board of Directors members, and (2) whether the governance and aperatioD structure of the NAC is consistent with best practices for non -prof its.

Allegation that NAC Board of Directors issued loans, or delivered money. to the NAC, in exchange for interest from the NAC;
Allegation that Executive Director Whitford made personal use of funds derived from a loan to the NAC, issued by NAC Board Member Jim Netzer;

NAC Response Letter to Aaron Harp

IHEUIPOR
i T ROURTIC CEnTER
CITY OF ��WPOR
CCF
zLD 6Y
MAR 18 Z019
OFFICCOFTHI-=
CrrYATrQFINE�y
Mmvh 15,2019
Mr. Aaron 14arp
City Atto'n1ey
I 0(f Ci'�ic CcntcT DT ivc
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dt�ar Mr. Harp:

Thi s. lEtter is i n respimse to your lefter dated February 14, 2 U 19.

We also, decidcd to not bombard you with all of the dmurnelatation thaL supports our positions. If there is any particular matter that you would like to see, please identify it for us.

On behalf of the NAC, we desire to perpetuate the long history of its relationship with the City and in accordance with the mission formed in 1982 to serve the public — all of the public and not some segment of it. We remain ready, wAling and able to meet with such City officials to lay the groundwork for the next 25 years because that is what the public deserves.

Dr. William Grant, President
,4
Billy Whitford, Extecuti e Director
b, The Loanl by Mr. Netzer.

In early 2015 Mr. Whitford wasconccmed about the reliability of the white truck used to trailer boats to the regattas and indicated that the NAC needed a new truck. During this time period the bathroom/locker room renovation was in full swing and with all of the mquired change orders, the NAC cash flow was being affected. As a result, Mr. Netzer offered to make a 3-year loan to the NAC that was secured by a Promissory Note so that a reliable truck could be purchased without having to apply for an auto loan and make principal and interest payments.

This arrangement was discussed at the April 21, 2015 Board meeting and approved. According, the loan was made. At each of the three annual dates when payments were due, Mr. Neizer donated the interest payment to the NAC. The loan was repaid in October 2018.

The loan was a valid transaction and is -no tonger reflected on the books and records of the NAC.
52 4�w_ Poly
T"
§
April 19, 20 19
SENT VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Board of Directors
Newport Aquatic Center
One Whitecliffs Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
CITY 0� N RVIP0 11T F, EAC I -
100 Civic Ce nte r Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-!113� 1 949 544-M9 5AX
RE: Newport Aquatic Center Ground Lease — Notice of Default To the Board of Directors:

As you are aware, the City of Newport Beach (ILC[tyl') is deeply concerned regarding the management of the Newport Aquatic Center. In our letter dated February 14, 2019, the City Attorney's Office asked the Board of Directors for the Newport Aquatic Center, Inc. ("NAG") to resperd to the allegafions of mismanagement. Our office has now reviewed the MaTch 15, 2019 correspondence from the NAG ("NAG Letter'), which responds tu these allegations, as well as information provided by third parties.

Unfortunately, the NAC Lefler has not relieved the City of its concerns regarding the management of the Newport Aquatic Center. In fact, based on all of the information available, it is our opinion the NAG has violated the terms of the ground lease between the City and the NAC ("Ground Lease")- Based thereon, the City is formally putting the NAG on notice 11 is in default of the terms of the Ground Lease. As set torth below, the NAG must Immediately correctthe violations orthe City will beforced to take action, which could include termination of the Ground Lease.

Furthcrmore, the City is troubled by the fact that the NAC is unwilling to immediately take steps to comply with City Council Policy F-7. As you are aware, the City recently modified Courcil Policy F-7 to require non -profits, such as the i who lease City property, at less than the market rate, to provide for election of directors in an open, democratic, and transparent process.

In the NAG Letter. the NAC contends that Council Policy F-7 does not apply to the NAG.

Our office has reviewed the NAC Letter and we disagree with your analysis regarding the applicability of Council Policy F-7 to any renewal or extension of the Ground Lease.

Newpo rt Aq u at ic Cente r G ro u nd Lease — N ofice of Defa u It April 19, 2019
Page: 2
However, debating whether Council Policy F-7 is applicabie to the NAC is somewhat pointless given that the City does not have to renew or extend the Ground Lease. Based thereon, you are hereby advised that the City will not be entering into negotiations with the NAC to renew or extend the Ground Lease.

Notice of Default
P u i nt to Secti on 2 3 of the G rou nd Lease, the C ity is h e re by p u tti ng the NAC a n noti ce that the NAC is in default in the performanoe of material covenants and conditions of the Ground Lease, as set forth below. Failure to immediately comply with all terms and conditions of the Ground Lease will faroe the City to take action, which could include termination of the Ground Lease.

Prohibited Business Activities
As you are aware, Section 15 of the Ground Lease states that 'no business" shall be conducted on the Property in violation of the terms of the Ground Lease. Section 14 of the Ground Lease states that NAC is "prohibited from using, or permitting others to use, the facility in any manner which is not authorized by, or inconsistent with, the approved [Facilities Managamant Plard " C7tirlkaarme-krm Qmrti,%ir-h 14 of the Ground Lease provides that "failure of [N Respectfully, [his paragraph after written notice by [City] shall be `�'Ty ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dase.'
-A ,,- C �, - V
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorrey
cc: City of Newport Beach City Coundi Members
Carol Jacobs, AssiSt21nt City Manager
David B. Dimitrulk, Lsq-
53 Could this be nothing?
If he simply disclosed that he was a Board of Director for a facility named in the Objective and Scope of the RFP, or if he disclosed that he made an interest-bea ring loan to a facility named in the Objective and Scope of the RFP, and/or he disclosed that he had negotiated a ZERO FEE lease agreement with the City's Real Property Administrator, Lauren Wood ing-Whitl inger, whom he prepared the Appraisal for, then maybe this would be nothing. But did he?
Let's look. Maybe he mentioned it in the Appraisal document? Maybe he mentioned it in his services agreement? Maybe in his form 700's?

ON -CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH JAMES B. NETZER DBA NETZER & ASSOCIATES FOR

PROPERTY APPRAISAL SERVICES
THIS ON -CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement-) is made and entered into as of this 23rd day of December, 2016 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a California municipal corporation and charter city ("City"), and JAMES B. NETZER A SOLE PROPRIETOR DOING BUSINESS AS ("DBA-) NETZER & ASSOCIATES, ("Consultant"), whose address is 170 E. Seventeenth Street, # 206, Costa Mesa, California 92627, and is made with reference to the followinq:

24. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

24.1 Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the Califomia Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the Work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.

24.2 If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section.
oc'o
2016 — On -Call Professional
Appraisal Agreement
Signed by Jim Netzer
and City Attorney Aaron Harp
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates written below.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Date- I L /-../I C-
BY: A02 ( J;-I—
Aaron C. Ha?o
City Attorney
ATTEST:

Date:

BYA&J�hv-
L605NYSrow�J '-- '_
City Clerk VIW
4(
0 [END OF S

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a California municipal corporation
Date. /iv
By: :I:/'< /I 'rig/h'ay(
Kimberly Brandt, AIGP
Community Development Department
Director
CONSULTANT: James B. Netzer, a sole
proprietor doing business as ("IDBA-)
Netzer & As5QCiatQ5
Date: lAt2ir Ize 14�
� t\ -1
By:

James B. Netz�r, MAI
Sole Proprietor
IGNATURES]
55 2016 Off -shore Appraisal
In the scope of experience, he mentions he has some kind of experience with conflict -of -interest analysis

APPRAISAL REPORT

FAIR MARKET RENT

OFF -SHORE & ON -SHORE MOORINGS

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

DATE OF VALUE
JANUARY 6,2016

PREPARED FOR

CHRIS MILLER

HARBOR MANAGER

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, HARBOR DEPARTMENT
829 HARBOR ISLAND DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660

PREPARED BY

NETZER & ASSOCIATES
170 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 206
COSTA MESA, CALMORNIA 92627
FILE NO, 2015-024
ScoK of Experience
During the period in which Mr. Netzer has been engaged as a real estate appraiser and analyst, he has been involved in most aspects of the rield having completed assignments for multiple purposes, including: estate planning, bankruptcy; conflict -of -interest analysis (Political Reforrn Act of 1974); construction defects litigation; soil subsidence; dissolution of marriage; ground lease rc-valuation, leasehold & sub-leaschold valuation; property tax appeals; lease and ground lease arbitration; casement/acc,ess/cncroachmcnt/title disputes (based on Overholizer v. Northern Counties Title); soils contamination litigation; mortgage lending; construction financing; portfolio valuation; market and feasibility analysis; fractional interest valuation; and, due diligence.

Further in the document, he certifies that he has no conflict of interest Newport 11arbor INloorings
Newport Beach, California January k 2016

CERTIFICATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, T certify that:

NETZER & ASSOCIATES
The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

The reported analysM opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.

I have no present or prospwive interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.

I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the thTee-year period immediately preceding acceptance of the this assignment.

I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved in the assignment. 56

2023 Off -shore Appraisal

APPRAISAL REPORT

FAIR MARKET RENT

OFFSHORE MOORINGS

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA

DATE OF VALUE
DFCEMBER 26.2023
LAUREN WOODING WHIT1INGER

REAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660

PREPARED BY
NET7ER & ASSOCIATES
170 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET. SUITE 206
COSTA MFSA, CALIFORNIA 92627
FILE NO. 2023-025
Doesn't mention the NAC., No -Fee 50 Year Ground Lease
U no interest or bias"
Newport IiHrbor Ofrshore Moorings
Ncwport ftaclh, California December 26, W23 N ETZE R & ASSOC I ATES

CERTIFICATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that-. r Fhe staternerits of fact contained in this report arc true and cor7ccl.

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by thC reported assumptiuns and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.

I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with rcspert to the p&rt1c.5 involvcd.

I performed an appraisal of the "onshore" moorings in December 2021 and an appraisal of the "City owned offshore moorings" in 2023. 1 have provided no other services, as an apprw ser or in any wher capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the th-ree-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

I have no hiag with respect to the properly that Is the sublect of this report or to the parties involved in the assigmnent.

My engagement in this assign=nt was not contingent upon developing or reporting predewrimined rcsults.

My compensation is not contingent upnn the reNriing of A predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the ainount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occur7encc of a subsNueni event.

The reported inaly%es, opinions, and conclusions were developecl, and this report has been prepared, in conformity %ith the Code of Proficssional. Ethics and Standards of Profcbsiunal Appraisal Practice of [he Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform SrandardN ofFrofessional Appraisal Practice, The use af this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized rcprcsenintives.

I have made a personal inspection of a representative sampling of the proper -ties that art the subject of this report.

Newport Harhor Offshore Moorings
Newport Beach, California Decem be r 26, 2023 NETZER & ASSOCIATES

CERTIFICATION
To the best of rny knowledge and belief, I certl`f� that:

The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of'Professional Appraisal Practice.

Let's look deeper into this Appraisal Institute and Code of Professional Ethics and Standards

Code of Professional Ethics and Appr
Explanatory Comments Instit
ER 3-6
a
aisal
ute",
I
01 In Valuation Practice it
is unethical to provide a
service
if
a Valuer has
any
direct or indirect,
current, or prospective
personal interest in the
subject
or
outcome of
the
service or with
respect to the parties involved in the service, unless:
(a) prior to agreeing to provide the service, the Valuer carefully considers the facts and reasonably concludes that he or she would remain unbiased and reasonable persons, under the same circumstances, would reach the same conclusion; (b) such personal interest is disclosed to the client prior to the Valuer agreeing to provide the service; and
(c) such personal interest is d isclosed-in -each., Report or other communication provided to the client resulting from such service.
59 051700175-KM -0175
CALIFORNIAFORm 700 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
I TIC &I TRAC. T—S COVER PAGE
A 0-&1;-
CAUFORNIAFORm 700
K
WIN MuMA� PRACI LCFA DOMill$MN
':

A PUBLIC DOCQFAE�
PUBLIC "!III-E,
Dae IniNal Filing Rece�vac
F -�U-
( xz 0* 1

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS

COVER PAGE
A Public Documenr

COVER PAGE
N-tz

1. 0
Aq,
Pfw� Too
'm ,
N.r—
0, prkv P �k
CALIFORNIA FORm 700
I CH
A
"M MI-WCAL F RACTICES COMMON

2. Ju

CALIFORNIAFORM
WE OF F� III,G, MCA, "ACMUS C E

3. yy
1fl

2. JU
El
Age

2. Ju
0 E1
xx]
Ell
r-1

3. Fy
M1
a. Ty
1K
PAS" Jypd, 0? P NX M ink
Clato Imbal FXng Roe6vIM
F�, �- � �0

CITY OF

NEWPORT BEACH
1 1414:143 '09
piling 0.
1%13TIS5 GQVERNK�NT I AM A... HOW DO I... TPENDING
"w"", I 1 -.1

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
^r"IrInt nAf-r
Fv"—
ffeej, �—. 2.

1. Office, Aciencv. or Court
AgencyNne �DonalLsfta= S)
ci�y f N-- 9—h
Divirwon, Bowd. Depadmenl- 10sinct if

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST,'

COVER PAGE
Your Pmkon
Dale "liatFlog RecW�d

STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (SEI)
Fm,,�
FORM 700
Date Inital I'ding
P--ce�ved
W—
Go to Search foi E-Filed Transaction Data
Search for Filed Statements
49 5,
�6�-
I, d,
Filing Date

4. Scl

2. Jur
C-t-altant
cz�D - - Aseoc4-a-a
C]s
P I ffing lor awMcle pyAws. lia Wowix on an ata� (Do Wuse acwym�
so
El I
Age-r.

Posdom
11 2. Jurisdict ion of Office foed mt Iem�l orm box)
1 0 1
TTyP4
F-1 SUili
EI Jw9e of couq comffl�Aom iskaltw& Junoaonl
.or-

4. Sch
Scf

4. Sch,
Fxl A
Elmulli-CDWY
El CoulIN of
Sch
al cil� of N-T-rl Re�H%
ather

5. Vei

3. Type of Statement a.,* a iemt . b..)
A
AdWAL71h e pa dad w�rad io Jw uary 1. 20 1 B. th� gh
Lmk4 Dwkt& Dat LeR
or-
D�c�mbar 11. 2018
(C-1hack circle)
LAI
. or_
d
-rho, pen�d covered is 11hrough
Tr* pwod cover-�dl IS jVbwy 1, 2018. Wough LhIff date
L—E-]

5. Vey
71 1
D—b� 31. 2o 113
offim.

4. Sche
Asstffikg 01`11cw Dato &ssumd ---- 1---J—
0 The perod wwred is J. Vowo Um dale
hw
&A

5. Ven
Sehe
of �awng offlu.
f
15P
L
Dw
4, Scbeduk Summary (must connqlet�,) - Total number of pWs including this cover page:

I Pd
Schedules aftached
rign
I hil,
E] Schedula A-1 - rimVrwis - 5dwdkd? am0ed
C1 S ch@Wo C - khom, Loans, & Bus-ims Pxibons - schedulo allachad cq
Im"
E] Schadde A-2 - Irnesrwas - "di�amcw
U-1 SchedLile D - ktw* - Gifts - �c hedula atathed
I eb
5, ved
E] SchedUo 8 - Pear Pmperfy - w1wdule alladed
1-1 $ChodLd� E - kX.VM - GitS - Tavof PWals - whedde altached uwi
Dr.
-;�
I W None - No reWfl&e inMf�sfs on any schedA
CIDID - Netzer &
Netzer, James
311/2024
Annual
View
Associates
CIDID - NetzeF &
Netzer, James
211612023
Annual
View
Associates
CIDD - Netzer &
Natzer, James
318/2021
Annual
View
Associates
CIDID - Netzer &
Netzer, James
315/2020
Annual
View
Associates
GDD - Netzer &
Natzer, James
212512019
Annual
View
Associates
Netzer, James
212612018
Annual
View
I -11w- --w- —r—
All form 700 submissions list "NONE — No reportable
interest of any schedule"

Wait. What happened to the lease renewal?

CITY OF

NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
October 10, 2023
Agenda Iterin No� 12
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sean Levin, Recreation and Senior Services Director - 949-644- 3151, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator, Jvvooding@newpc)rtbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3236
TITLE: Joint Powers Agreement with County of Orange, and an Amended and Restated Ground Lease with Newport Aquatic Certer, Inc. for North Star Beach Located at 1 Whitediffs Drive
Just 13 days before the existing 50 year lease was about to expire. Lauren Wooding Whitlinger prepares this staff report to Council and the Mayor.

History
RECOMMENDATIONS:

C) Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the Amended and Restated Ground Lease between the City of Newport Beach and Newport Aquatic Certer, Inc., for continued use of the property known as North Star Beach located at 1 Whitediffs Drive. in a form substantially similar to the amendment attached to the staff report; and Ully (IT IN-MMOIrT IIIINNN�94_
d) Approve a waiver of City Council Policy F-7 — Income and Other Property based on the findings contained In this staff report and the Lease, that conducting an open bid process or changing the tenant would result in excessive vacancy, and the use of the property provides an essential or unique service to the community and is of a public benefit, and might not otherwise be provided where an open bid or full fair market value of the property be required, and based on the unique services provided by tenant, its board mombers are 2pp&nted through a process that ensures board members maintain the requisite experience and contributions to the tenant's operations.

Amended and Restated Ground Lease
The proposed terms of the Lease are summarized below:

1. The initial term is 30 years, with two, 110-year- extension options, for a total possible term of 50 years, unless terminated earlier as provided by the Lease.

NAC approached the City in 2016 requesting a new lease for the Premises in consideration of its recent renovation to the restroom and locker rooms, and in anticipation of further renovations to the facility and the fleet of vessels. After negotiating a new lease and JPA, the documents were submitted to the County Board of Supervisors and the JPA was approved by the County on November 20, 2018. Additional negotiations between the City and NAC delayed bringing the new agreements forward until this time.

DailyPilot
NEWS
Newport Beach City Council approves
extension of ground lease for Aquatic
Center
Pi�ddl.. gt —dy i. h-d out into th. —t& it t" Newport Aq-ti. C—t- in Ma�h 202.1 TM! Gity of N—prt U-1h. through a juint p—rs �kgreernent with t1he county re�ently apprmiid an extendLd lard litase hir the (mnter �Dan LeaGh St.H Plh.tgr.ph-�
V LILLY NGIL�YFN I STAFF WRITER
OCT. 11. 202's 6;05 PM n
P:>
ne Newport Aquatic Centerwill. continue to operate at its current location for at least a 3o-year terin, thanks to approval given Tuesday by the Newport Beach City Conncil to extend its existing ground lease.

The agenda item to approve the newleasewas originally folded into the council's consent calendar but was pulled by Councilman Brad Avery for discussion.

TILe terms of the amended contract provide an initial 3o-year term %ith t'Ao ig-vGar extension options for a total possible term of 5o years. It maintainsp ast points of agreement, such as being a no -fee lease for the continued operations of the center at no cost to the city, being held to a city -approved facilities management Plan and abiding by all -entitlements and permits issued by the city, county, state and federal agencies.

The city's real property manager Lauren Wooding Whitlinger s aid the newly - approved agreement requires the Newwrt Aquatic 'Center to spend 3% of its gross revenues on repairs, maintenance and refurbishments to the facility. It also requires inspections, includes internal control language, and specifically defines the period of time that the center will have to ameliorate any identified issues.

Council members spoke highly of the New -port Aquatic Center, though Avery noted he pulled the iteni so the council could more fiffly discuss the nonprcfit'sway forward.

Avery said he -w-as in favor of the new agreement and described it as "far more robust" than the existing document but did raise concerns about zQma-Q�gzd trouble - the Newport Aquatic Center faced in 2LLLa and =43., including allegations of financial misconduct, harassment and retaliation. Court reoords indicate deliberations in some of those la-;vsuits continued until early 2023.
'I have no idea what has transpired in those, but it just, to me, when you see that, it makes youwonder whatwas going on thexe," Avery said.

M
On Wednesday, Chris Blank, president of the Newport Aquatic Center's board of directors, said officials there were "very pleased" with the extended agreement. I 63 Was the appraisal independent?
The Harbor Commission repeatedly states they requisitioned an independent professional appraisal

Appraisal Report Review
of
Fair Market Rent
for
Offshore Moorings
Januar-y 10, 2024
PrLsented By: Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner
Was the a
indepen
ppraisal
dent?
The Harbor Commission repeatedly states
they requisitioned an independent
professional appraisal
Harbor Commission Subcommittee Fair Market Rates Considerations:
• The long history of below -market rental rates for mooring permits in Newport Harbor
• What is relative to the rates charged for other uses of City tidelands • What is relative to the rates charged for slips in Newport Harbor • The extensive analysis presented in the recent offshore and onshore independent professional appraisals

�ronl: Scatt "nningha
To: Arn Netzer
Cc: Wood im, Lau re
Subject: 45" Newport Off -shore Mooring in D Field - boat& - by owner - morine sale - craiq.&list Date: September 21), 2023 1:03:50 PM
Amadiments: 45" Newwrt Offshore Moorina in D Field - boats - bv owner - marine sale - (43SIiSt.13110 Nice tidy profit...
�From:

Cunninaham, Sca
To:

Jim Netzer
Cc:

Woodina, Lauren
Subject:

Fwd: alert: Newport Mooring
Date:

June 09, 2022 10:17:32 AM
Hi Jim,
Probably going to move forward with offshore appraisal towards end of Summer but wanted you to keep th�i's for vour records. Check out last sentence.

Thanks,
Scott
Scott Cunningham
Begin forwarded rnemage
From: CL S�-,arch
Date. June 9,2022 at 9�36-41 AM PDT
To.!3cottl 2159@iclolw-com
Subject: alert: Newport Mooring
I now rc5ult for search term5. -.Newport Mooring, sort: relevant, as of 2022-06-09 W36:37 AM PDT
. ZLe-k�
W all I
g�rmm='
Commissioner Cunningham is seen here sending emails of craigslist ads, which shows the purported listings of craigslist ads for offshore moorings for sale

From: ja mesbnetzer-A-aolixorn
To: Wooding, Lauren- Blank Paul
Subject: Offshore Mooring Appraisal Question
Date: December 05, 2023 4:08:15 PM
[EXTERNAL E--NLAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachnients iinless yon recognize the sender and know the ,�ontent is Safe.

Lauren & Paul,
I am trying to get the draft appraisal completed but I have a question about the size of a "typical" mooring and the square feet of tidelands that it encumbers. On methodology I apply the "land value" to the square footage and convert it to a rental rate. In the onshore mooring appraisal I based the value on an onshore mooring encumbering an area of 288 square feet (36' x 8') based on the "typical" area from the point of attachment (seawall) to the mooring buoy/ball and an 8' beam. What dimensions and square footage should I use for the offshore mooring? Thanks for your assistance!
Regards,
Jim Netzer 1 67

From:

To:

S u bj ect:

Date:

Attachments:
j a niesbnetzer(,&,aol.corn
Woodina, Lauren
Offshore Mooring Phase -In
January 17, 2024 2:41:46 PM
Offshore Moorina Phase In.r)df
%I
[EXTERNAL ENUIL] DO NOT CLICK hilks or attachments wiless you recognize the selider and L iow the ,-.olltent is safe.

Lauren,
The phase in we discussed is attached. Let me know if have any comrnents or questions.

Regards,
Jirn Netzer
M.

From: Scully, Steve
To: ]a mosbnot7oOdnol. rom
Cc: Bepr. Ira; Cunningham. Soo ; Blank, Pau
Subject: Rei VRAFF - Offshere MoorIng Appraisal w/ Tlered rates Date: Decembler 27, 2023 2:37:13 PM
Jim, just some housekeeping -the "Table of Contents" needs some formatting work to a L be symmetrical.

Additionallyyou have your page number 2 in this draft twice. Just a FYI.

I like the table with the broken out rates better than just one rate.

Thank for the quick turn.

Regards,
Steve Scully
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
[email protected]
909-322-2893
Ira,
I'll wait for your comments or for you to give me the go-ahead to finalize.

Regards,
Jim Netzer
Jarres B. Net2er, MAI
Netzer & Associates
From:
beer, Ira
To-
Scully, Stevii jamesbnetzer(agolcom
C c.-
Cunningham, Scott Blank, Plaul
Subject:

Re: DRAFr - Offshore MoGdnq Appraisal w/ Inered rabEs
Date-
December 27, 2029 2:50:07 W
Attachments:
�rnam-001.pna
Agreed, unless there are any other comments from Paul or Scott, please move fvvd with the final report as you see fit. Thank you and have a Happy New Year! Best regards,
Ira Beer
HarbDr Commissioner
ibeeirOnewpQrtbeachcamov
(949) 702-6900
From; Wooding, Lauren
To; Beer, Ira iamesbneter(aaol.corn
Cc: Blank, Paul; Scully, Ste P Cunningham, Sco
Subject: RE: DRAFT` - Offshore Mooring Appraisal w� Tiered rates Date: January 04, 2024 12:28:00 PM
Attachments: [rnaae001.j3na
Hi Ira,
Jim and I met this morning to review some additional comments I had to the report. I shoOd have the final draft from him tomorrow to attach to the staff report and will share with the subcommittee at that time.

Let me know if you need anything else in the meantime.

Thank you!
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitfinger
Real Property Administrator
Community Development Department
CA Broker License *01943711
Office, 949-644-3236
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660 69

From: Blank, Paul
To: jarnesbnetzerCc�aol.com
Subject: RE: DRAFr - Offshore Mooring Appraisal w/ Tered rates Date: December 27, 2023 10:23:0D AM
Attachments: �rnaqeO01.r)no
Great work!!
Thankyou
Have a great New Year.

Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Blank, Paul
jamesbnetze
Wooding, Lauren
Re: Offshore Mooring Appraisal Question
December 05, 2023 4:48:06 PF
PastedlGraphic-Ung
'=001 'the cool thing about onshore moorings is they are essentially all the same size.

Offshore moorings are of a variety of sizes (25', 30', 35', 40'...90').

Any dimensions I give you will be subject to critique as "not representative of the variety of sizes, configtuations and conditions" actimlly out there.

That disclaimer out of the way, the biggest population of moorings out there are 40' moorings.

A typical 40' boat on one of those moorings would be 40' long x 14' wide but the mooring takes up much more space than that.
'the distance fi-om the boat to each mooring float is approximately 10' - so the space taken up oil the sm-face is approximately 60'. Then there is the placement of the weights on the sea floor. The distance from the float to the weight adds at least 7' and up to as many as 15' to each end of the mooring depending on the depth where the mooring is placed.

If you want to go with just the surface dimensions consumed by the typical mooring on Newpol t Harbor, go with 60' x 20'.

If you want to go with tile dimensions of the entire mooring including what's below the surface, go with 80'x 20'.

Best,
From: Woodinci, Lauren
To: JamesbnetzerC&ao1.com`
Subject: RE: DRAFT APPRAISAL - Offshore Moorings - Fair Market Rent Date: Decern be r 20, 2023 5: 18: 00 P M
Attachments: imacieGOI.ionq
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for getting this draft �n to me before the end of the year. I will be sharing internally and will be in touch afte� the new year with any comments or changes before we have you finalize the report and take �t out of draft mode.

I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and get to spend time with your family in the next few weeks!
And I look forward to catching up with you in the new year.

Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Communitv Develor)ment Der)artment
On Wednesday, January 3,2024,4.56 PM, Wooding, Lauren
wrote:

Hi Jim,
I'm going through the report and have some additional comments and questions that I'd like to address before we publish this, since I know it will be reviewed very closely.

Do you have time tomorrow morning to review with me?
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Paul Blank
Flarboffnasber
bb—b—mb--i
70 -----uriginal Iviessage -----
From: Wooding, Lauren
To: James Netzer ([email protected])
Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2022 10:35 am
Subject- FW- Shore Mooring Rental Rate Increase
Hi Jim,,
Thanks for answering all of the quest -ions I submitted to you. I am reviewing them with Paul and will let you know 'if we have any further questions.

In the meantime, can you review the email below and let me know when you have some time to chat. I think this should be considered in our valuation,, but I th"ink it is mostly a matter of administrative capacity. I want to get your take on 'it before I discuss further with Paul.

Thank you,
Lauren

LAUREN WOODING WHITLINGER
Communitv Develoment DeDartment
71 Howdy Jim:

Thanks for taking the meeting this morning.

Upon further inspection of that one 25' mooring in the BYC field, I noticed that an individual holds it and therefore needs a rate set by the City.

I don't think you need to perform some extensive analysis just for that one mooring.

Please just apply the 30' rate you determine to that mooring but definitely add an entry in the report that includes the 25' category.

Sorry for my previous inaccurate or 'incomplete statement.

IIA
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
72 On Jul 22,2020, at 1:48 PM, Cunningham, Scott
> wrote:

Removing Jim.

Hi All�
I've had two long conversations with Jim regarding the
The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appr
much different than the 2016 numbers.

Note the dates:

Scotts email — 7/22/2020
RFP 21-53 Published — 4/8/2021
2016 Mooring Appraisal.
asal results will look

TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
RFP Published: I April 8. 202�
73 Code of Professional Ethics and
Explanatory Comments
ER 3-3
0 Appraisal
Institute --
In Valuation Practice it is unethical to provide a service that is contingent upon reporting a predetermined analysis, opinion or conclusion.
74 On March 2 nd 1 2024 Paul Blank emails a concerned resident stating he has to recuse himself from the matter due to a conflict of interest determined by the City Attorney and City Manager.

Blank was involved in this appraisal since the beginning. Is this too little too late? From: "Blank, PaLll"
Date: March 2, 2024 at 3.36:07 PM PST
To:

Subject: RE: CBRE appraisal.

The City Manager and City Attorney have determined I have a conflict of interest related to this matter and can no longer contribute to the discussion or proceedings.

Aloha)
Paul Blank
1 NW P Harbormaster
1��W 1"�O/? Harbor
75 �ubject: Appraisal Kick -Off Call - Off -shore Moorings Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting
St a rt:

Thu
10/26/2023
2:00
PIVI
End:

Thu
10/26/2023
3:00
PM
Recurrence: (rone)
Meeting Status: Meetng organizer
Organizer: Wooding, Laurer
Required Attendees: James Netzer; Beer, Ira; Scully, Steve, Scott Cunningham; Blank, Paul Microsoft Teams meeting
76 Conclusion
* Why didn't Netzer make any disclosures of his affiliation with "parties involved" in the Harbor?
Why did the City choose Netzer as the appraiser? Surely, the City Attorney knew about the loan? Surely, the City Real Property Administrator knew about the NAC lease agreement. So why would they choose Netzer when there were three other proposals submitted to RFP 21-53 * Other Proposers: Lea Associates, R. P. Laurain, The Dore Group Why did the Harbor Commission repeatedly state this was an INDEPENDENT appraisal?
Why did the Staff, Harbormaster, and Harbor Commissioners attempt influence and steer the Appraiser and final Appraisal?

Why should the Yacht Club Moorings care?
From:

To: Jacobs, Carol
Cc: BorstIng, Kurt; Wooding, Lauren; Kenn2y, Will1am, Jr.; Beer, Ira Subject: Re: Newport Harbor Fair Market Rent Moonrigs
Date, September 26, 2020 8:15:59 AM
od morning!
ith the miforrnation provided by Lauren on the Yacht Club agreements, I can now sm-n up , total discount we apply to the moorings given "no" dinghy parking. Note Jim Netzer tifirmed the discount is $1.67/mo ($20.04/yr) per linear ft across off -shore moormigs and % less for on -shore moorings.

I think we would al I agree that the discount should not be applied to the shore moorings and Yacht Clubs. We'll get that corrected next round. But the real pwWse of the email is to highlight how big of an issue dinghy parking is since the 2016 appraisal has been in effect.

In summary we discount $676,449 per year for lack of dinghy parking. This equates to S3.38M over the last 5 years.

Off -shore Moorings: We have 24,700 linear feet. We discount these mooring rates by $494,988/yr.

Yacht Club Moorings-. We have 5,149 linear feet. We discoLint these mooning rates by S103,185/yr.
'Shore Moorings: We have 7,812 linear feet. We discount these mooring rates by $78,276/yr. I I 000mr— 78

And 2 years later they came for Onshore Moorings
January 12, 2022
Agenda Item No. 7.2
TO: HARBOR COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: Paul Blank, Harbormaster, (949) 270-8158, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator, [email protected], 949-644-3236
TITLE- Review of Appraisal and Discussion of Rental Rates for On -Shore Moorinq Permits
Table 2
Recommended Onshore Mooring Rental Rates
(Monthly Rate per Linear Foot)
Recommended Rates
Current Rent
$/LF
2022 Rent
$/LF
Phase 1:

JuIV 2022
Phase 2:

January 2023
$1.58
$1.61
$10.00
$20.00
Table 3
Proposed Rate
Onshore Mooring Rent Revenues
(Annual, Estimated)
2022 Revenues (Est.)
Phase 1 Revenues (Est.)
Phase 2 Revenues (Est.)
$165,971
$1,032,480
$2,064,960
79 Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting 05/08/2024 - Public Comment I have concern that The Harbor Commission vote of April 1 Oth, recommending offshore mooring rent increases ranging from 300, to over 500%, suffers from deficiency.

At that meeting, Vice Chair Beer presented visual materials specific to the recommendation.

I was unable to locate those materials within the meeting agenda online, or in hardcopy available at Chambers.

Everyone involved, should be fully aware that this is controversial, and that there's an extremely high level of public interest. Clearly, as what was adopted on April 10 was displayed on the big screen during the meeting, the recommendation did exist in documented form. The public had a right to have been provided these substantive, adopted materials prior to the meeting.

Additionally, Commissioners that night, seemed to have prepared remarks explaining their votes in support of the recommendation. I'm also aware of an e-mail from February, stating:
"Ijust know we have the votes". The indication being, that there was prior intimate knowledge of the recommendation, and that minds were already made up, evidencing little use for public input.

I contend that compliance with open meeting law requirements was not met, and that the matter on these grounds, should be re-agendized, but with complete and proper notice, to include the recommendation itself.

I also understand, that a number of Decisionmakers for this matter, and participating parties who are current, or former civil servants, have been intimately involved in the process to date.

Others are equity members in Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits at those Clubs. Some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the recommendation, are pier permit holders, paying much lower rates than mooring permitees.

These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been disclosed prior to Commission action, and/or motivated recusal on the action.

Persons with such interest's, trying to address, or offset a substantial Harbor expense deficit by digging into the pockets of others, rather than their own, seems the end result, and this is a wrongful result.

The fact that 58% of mooring permitees reside outside of the City, shouldn't make it okay to take additional advantage of them, when they're already paying more in fees than others, including specific Decisionmakers, for use of the same State resource.

Adam Leverenz
[email protected]

From: Leuna, Grace
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 05, 2024 4:21:00 PM
From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:10 PM
To: Leung, Grace
Subject: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 5, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Manager, Grace K Lueng
We seem to be at a tipping point on the issue of raisingthe offshore mooring rates in Newport Harbor. The matter is on the agenda forTuesday, JuLy 8, 2024 Council. meeting. I wiLL be at the meetingto carefuLLy Listen to the recommendations from the Harbor Commission and the City CounciL's consideration of the matter.

I have personally written several, letters to the Harbor Commission, the City Council and you of the unfairness to target and raise my mooring permit fee. I have been in the harbor for over twenty-five years and have been a good tenant.

It now appears that the City of Newport Beach wants to raise the permit fee to $480 per month on my forty foot mooring. That is a 3.6 times more than I am currently paying.

What is the purpose of the proposed increase?
What is the City of Newport's reasoning behind the increase? Why are the mooring rates tied to the slip rates in Basin Marina? We certainLy do not have the same amenities that are afforded the slip hoLders.

This is a ridiculous increase!

Why remove the transferability of the mooring permits? This is a revenue source to the City and a fair way to rejuvenate the usage of the mooring permittees..

If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like me, that will Lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.

Unless you can definitively explain the reasoning and justification for this increase to me, I strongly encourage you to recommend the City Council to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and Leave in place the current rate structure for the people they serve.

Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their constituents? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.

Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(cbgmail.com

From: Judis, Seirnone
To: Brown, Leilani
Cc: Harp, Aaron; Leung, Grace; Surnmerhill, Yolanda
Subject: Fwd: Tuesday 7/9/24 Council Meeting Concerning Mooring Rates Date: July 07, 2024 10:45:54 PM
Selmone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Benzen
Date: July 8, 2024 at 1:41:20 AM GMT+2
To: "Wooding, Lauren"
Cc: "Jurjis, Seimone"
Subject: Tuesday 7/9/24 Council Meeting Concerning Mooring Rates EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the pfe.

Dear Lauren and Seimone,
The City posted an Agenda packet for a hearing concerning moorings. Par for the course, with the City of Newport Beach concerning moorings, the City's hearing was posted during the July 4 th holiday week to attempt to minimize public participation and opposition.

OLCII I YLJOLI--U ILZ) I C;1JL)1 L C11 1U OULULAULA VVI ]CIL CILLCIU1 III 11Z;1 ILO Ll lt:,y VVC11 105LA LU CILLGILA 1.

Lhis is to make sure that the Staff report and the Staff selected attachments are the only ritten items that Staff is going to Dresent or arrange to Dresent to the Citv Council. �I am confirming that this is all that Staff wanted to present to Council and Staff did not ithhoLd reports or presentations to the public and mooring permittees for this hearing? Thanks,
Chris B

From:

Sally Peterson
To:

City Clerk"s Office
Subject:

Proposed Rental Increase for Shore Moorings
Date:

July 06, 2024 3:47:19 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the afe.

Thank you for taking the time to fully consider the impact of the proposed rental increases. As a whole, the proposed rental increases are excessive and derived by use of incomplete data and faulty analysis. Your decision will have a lasting impact on small boating in this bay. Take your time to do it correctly.

I am a small boater and have a shore mooring. The onshore moorings were not included in this 2024 analysis until the final vote. At the very end of the series of Harbor Commission meetings regarding the rent increase, without much discussion, the concluded shore mooring rents were included using an analysis similar to that used for the offshore mooring. However, the analysis for the onshore moorings uses incorrect slip data:

SIZE RESTRICTION - Shore moorings are restricted to boats not larger than 18x8.

The rental comp was 20x1 0+. Offshore moorings do not have the beam restriction that onshore moorings have. In the onshore mooring analysis, a downward adjustment should be made for this size difference. This was not done.

USE RESTRICTION - NO ELECTRIC BOAT MOORING - The high demand for small slips is driven by the extremely large number of Duffys+ in the Bay. There are just not enough 20 foot slips to meet the demand for Duffys, thus driving up the rental rates.

Unfortunately, a shore mooring is not a replacement for a slip. There is no power at a shore mooring to charge an electric boat and, at low tide, a Duffy's rudder and prop would likely be damaged due to grounding. The use of and high rental rate for a slip is not comparable to a shore mooring.

Thank you for rethinking the proposed rental increases. Approving the rental increases as proposed is ill advised.

Sally Peterson

Newport Beach City Council Meeting 07/09/2024 — Public Comment Re:

Agenda Item #13 & "What is a fair market rent?":

Dear Mayor and Council,
A recent article in The Daily Pilot, covering the first "Coffee and Conversation with the Mayor" event, indicates that pertaining to the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Recommendation to increase Mooring Permit rents/fees in ranges of about 300, to over 500%, Mayor O'Neill asked an attendee "What is fair market rent?"
Responding to that inquiry, I'd note that some Newport Beach Civil Servants, have interpreted public comment opposing the excessive proposed mooring rent/fee increases, as people stating that charging Fair Market Value Rent is not necessary. I've attended numerous meetings on the matters, and do not recall any specific remarks I've interpreted that way. A primary issue seems to be though, that a number of City Off icials/Personnel, are defining "fair market rent", in other than customary terms. The City Staff Report for Agenda Item 13 tonight, incorrectly states that mooring fields are "used for docking boats". I take this as further indication, that a number of persons involved with policy, continue to not understand the substantial differences between docking; mooring; anchoring; berthing; or being in a slip.

The California State Lands Commission (Hereafter "SLC"), calculates annual rental rates for the lease of State tide and submerged lands approximately every 5 years, the last time being about two years ago, in June of 2022. Their current Category 1 Benchmark rate for Southern California, is .451 cents per square foot per year. Newport Beach data was used in determining that rate.

Associated SLC Staff Report 39, for purposes of comparing commercial marinas to buoys/mooring poles states:
"These facilities offer many of the same amenities as a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment".

Moorings in Newport Harbor, are clearly lacking in the amenities of docking, and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. A lack of onshore parking, access to utilities and services, and dinghy/tender storage have also been cited as impediments Mooring Permitees face in Newport. Additionally, while Mooring Permittees are prohibited by Code from subletting their Mooring Permits, Residential Pier Permittees are allowed to sublet their dock space. And interestingly, the City Codified that it may sublet permitted moorings, with the

City keeping all of the proceeds. Mooring Permitees are also required to add The City as insureds to their vessel policies, providing the City millions of dollars of free coverage. Apparently, Residential Pier Permittees are not held to this standard. And yet with the various challenges faced by Mooring Permitees, and the much higher level of imposed City restriction, this group pays higher rent/fee amounts.

SLC Staff Report 39 uses the words "fair"; "equitable"; "reasonable"; 66 consistent"; and "appropriate", to describe their current Benchmark rate. This means that the current rate of .451 cents per square foot per year, is what the State, with vast levels of knowledge and experience in such things, has determined to be "fair". The formula The State used to set that rate, is clearly outlined (SLC Staff Report 39, as Attachment A).

A Fee Schedule from The City of Newport Beach website, indicates that Residential Piers, aka docks over State owned, City managed tide/submerged lands adjacent to residential properties, incur annual rental fees of .56 cents per square foot per year. Various City Resolutions setting past and present fees for these Residential Pier Permits in Newport, for use of the same lands as Mooring Permitees, describe those rates as "fair market value rent". That being the case, The City's current Residential Pier Permit rate of .56 cents per square foot, must be considered to be fair.

As a holder of a 40' Mooring Permit, and noting that 40' Permits are said to be the most common in Newport, I currently pay about 239% more in fees for a space to have a boat, than does a Residential Pier Permitee. And noteworthy, is that Residential Pier Permit fees, are not assessed on the physical space the boats at those piers occupy. (Please see attached Exhibit B).

An April 9, 2024 letter from The SLC addresses this:
"Staff also observes a significant disparity between the City's residential pier rates and mooring rates. In addition to reassessing mooring rates, staff believes it is an opportune time for the City to also reassess its residential pier rates to ensure these rates refiect fair market value consistent with the City's granting statutes and fiduciary duties.

Charging less than fair market rates for the use and occupation of granted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds and a violation of the City's fiduciary duties to the state. "

Coincidentally, or ironically, Residential Pier Permit fees are another Agenda Item for tonight's meeting. In spite of The SLC noting that now is the time to address "significant" rate disparity, it appears from City Agenda materials, that the rate will increase by an insignificant 1 cent per square foot per year. Will Mayor and Council hold that assessing much lower fees to Harbor Commissioners; Electeds; and others, for the space their piers/docks encumber over granted sovereign lands, constitutes those parties paying "fair market rent"? Will Mayor and Council conclude that the fee free boat storage at these Residential spaces, is not an unconstitutional gift? These determinations occurring during the same meeting that Mayor and Council consider increasing Mooring Permit Rates/Fees by hundreds of percentages, is very troubling.

A 2024 Appraisal Report from highly regarded firm CBRE, determined fair annual rent amounts for offshore moorings here, closely in line with what they are presently (That Report is included within Attachment J, of tonight's Agenda Item 13 materials). The City commissioned Netzer and Associates Appraisal Report of 12/26/2023 on the other hand, concluded that Offshore Mooring rents should increase exponentially. Netzer's conclusions, appear based on inappropriate/flawed methodology; comparisons to dry -land real properties; for - profit Marina slips; etc.; etc. These do not so closely compare to moorings over generally undevelopable land/water, as is implied. Netzer materials also evidence some discrepancy about how many offshore mooring fields, and how many public docks exist in Newport Harbor, and contradict a 2016 determination made by the very same firm (Discussed in more detail below). In memos included with the 03/18/2024 Newport Beach Harbor Commission Special Meeting Agenda, Mr. Netzer seems to try and explain away contradictions between himself in 2016 and 2023, and himself in 2023, and CBRE in 2024.These memos have only raised numerous, additional questions/concerns.

Information is also available, indicating that Offshore Mooring rents/fees in Newport Beach, are presently higher, sometimes significantly so, than those in other areas of the State (Attachment C).

Some have tried to use the City's new Mooring License Program to rationalize fee increases for Mooring Permits. Under the Program though, the City maintains the mooring tackle. In contrast, individual Mooring Permitees incur that not insignificant expense themselves.

And near 100 moorings sit unoccupied in Newport Harbor on any given day.

This level of vacancy, is partly due to the fact that the overnight sublet price set by the City, pencils out to be near the cost of a fully appointed marina slip. The

over -pricing of these empty moorings, creates a false scarcity, which in turn, serves to drive up the price which can be obtained for the very limited number of City held Mooring Licenses. Moreover, the fact that 40' moorings are the most common, and that in the vicinity of 20 applications were received for the single 40' Mooring License the City offered, also contributes to pricing pressure. The sole 30' Mooring License, receiving a similar number of applicants, mirrors a limited supply, high demand pricing effect, which cannot rationally be used to determine "fair market rent".

It would be errant, wrongful, and harmful, for the City to ignore multiple sources of data, that indicate with consistency, what fair market rent is. It would be errant, wrongful, and harmful, for the City to knowingly chose to rely on an outlier Appraisal Report, which appears to have been influenced and crafted, by individuals with financial interests. Mayor and Council should not refuse to accept that the current SLC Benchmark rate; The City's own Residential Pier Permit fee; The CBRE Offshore Mooring Appraisal Report values; and the lower fees for moorings in other areas of the State, establish "fair market rent".

In effort to rationalize Newport's current rent/fee disparity being increasing even further, the City has pretty consistently used about 5 points. Although a substantial amount of materials have been submitted refuting those points, given the urgency of the matter, and the amount of time required to analyze the materials, I will here, provide a synopsis:

The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"Mooring rates in Newport have been too lowfior too long. " Rebuttal: As noted, mooring rates in Newport Beach, are multiple times higher than the current State Lands Commission (Hereafter SLC) Category 1 Benchmark Rate applicable to tide/submerged lands in Orange County (.45.1 cents per square foot per year); they are multiple times higher than the City's residential pier/dock permit rate of about .56 cents per square foot per year; they are higher than those for mooring permits in other areas of the State; they are closely in -line with rates determined though a recent appraisal, by highly regarded firm CBRE.

The City of Newport Beach will say that:
"...the 2006-0 7 Grand Jury report included a recommendation to the City

to establish a regularly scheduled independent appraisalfor thefair market value of mooring permitfees based on a percentage of the cost of a slip... " Rebuttal: The Grand Jury report did not recommend any percentage of comparison between a slip and a mooring. The City could use 1 % or 3%, just as arbitrarily as 24%, 32%, or 34%. Moorings and slips vary greatly in impediments of use, convenience, amenities, security, etc., etc. The Grand Jury may not have known this. Again, many unfamiliar with boating, are not fully aware of the distinctions between slips; moorings; anchorages. Additionally, the City, in response to Grand Jury report findings, addressed errant information within the report, disagreed partially with five findings, clarified another, and indicated one recommendation would not be implemented. The Grand Jury report appears to have been formulated by laypersons, unfamiliar with the subject matter, which understandably, contributed to an imprecise document.

The City of Newport Beach correctly indicates that:
"Charging less thanfair market ratesfor the use and occupation ofgranted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift ofpublic funds... " Rebuttal: As noted above, Mooring Permit Holders in Newport Beach currently pay much more in rents/fees, than do other users of the same State resource.

The City's contention that Mooring Permittees are somehow paying "less than fair market rates", and are being gifted something, is disingenuous at best.

The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"the subject rates have only been adjusted once over the past 28 years " Rebuttal: This is patently false. There have been multiple adjustments, as recently as January 2024, based on the City's well established, and broadly accepted and used practice of annual CPI based adjustments.

The City of Newport Beach indicates that:
"...the City is required to obtain fair market rent in exchangefor exclusive use, fair market value is what is required by law, including the City's municipal code... "

Rebuttal: Again, Mooring permit holders in Newport Beach pay multiples more in rents/fees for their water only permits, than do residential land -attached, walk- on City permitted piers/docks. Moreover, boats on Moorings do not occupy the full square footage area that fees are assessed on. On the other hand, the City does not generally assess rents/fees for the square footage area that boats at piers/docks occupy, and only assesses fees based upon the square footage calculation of the physical footprint of the pier/dock. Boats at residential piers/docks, consequently, pay nothing for the sovereign land they occupy, while mooring permitees pay fees on more space than they actually occupy.

The City of Newport Beach contends that:
"The California State Lands Commission provided a written response concerning the methodology used in the Netzer appraisal which concluded that the approach, methodologies and its recommendations are reasonable.

Rebuttal: While there's an element of truth to the City's contention, it neglects to disclose that The SLC, in the very same written response, also said:
"...there are some areas where the appraisal would benefitfrom clarification or revision. "
t i
, staff disagrees that residential land values should be used as a basisfor valuing the offshore moorings, because the moorings'use is not connected with the residential use. "
", the appraisal references proposed mooring rate increases by the San Diego Unified Port District, another trustee of sovereign land, and states that they were approved by the State Lands Commission. Just like in Newport Bay, the State Lands Commission does not have review or approval authority over the San Diego Unified Port District's mooring rates and therefore did not approve the Port's mooring rate increases. "
", the appraisal would benefitfrom a more thorough discussion of the moorings and marinas used in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of the amenities, servi . ces, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and otherfactors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences. "

", the appraisal would benefitfrom clearer explanations of how calculations were performed. For example, the appraisal uses an average marina slip rate of $50.55for Newport Bay and concludes that a 30% marina -to -slip ratio is a ropriate. In both cases the appraisal provides the data the conclusions are based on but does notprovide an explicit calculation or analysisfor how each conclusion was reachedfrom the data. " "The City could also adopt different rates if additional information shows that the recommendations should be modified. "
"Staff also observes a significant disparity between the City's residentialpier rates and mooring rates. In addition to reassessing mooring rates, staff believes it is an opportune timefor the City to also reassess its residential pier rates to ensure these rates reflectfair market value consistent with the City's granting statutes andfiduciary duties. "
The Netzer Appraisal Report that the City had State Lands review, and which State Lands deemed "reasonable" in letter form on April 9, 2024, has strong indications of being much less than "Independent" (Addressed below).

Considering this, along with the many other shortcomings The SLC letter noted with the appraisal, I contend that Mayor and Council's reliance on it is not "reasonable".

Considerations related to Process:

Newport Beach's current Harbormaster, a termed -out Harbor Commissioner, contributed to the rent/fee increase recommendation until March of 2024, when he recused himself stating: "As a mooring permittee, these discussions may affect mefinancially. "
Recusal at that late date, does not remedy prior action s/co ntri buti ons during the process. The Harbormaster also appears to have been involved in the City's new Mooring License Program, and in what I will refer to, as the Mooring Field C Realignment/Reconfig u ration Plan. As a result, each process has been irretrievably damaged. This is especially concerning, given that the City, City Attorney, and Harbormaster, entered into a prior agreement, mandating that the Harbormaster:

"does notparticipate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use orfinancial arrangements associated with offshore moorings " and "reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related to offshore mooringpermits are made by Real Property Administration staff" (Attachment D)
Do Mayor and Council conclude that the City Attorney; select City staff/ personnel; The Harbormaster, et al., all simply forgot about this agreement? Or, contend that the parties knowingly disregarded it? Is either scenario acceptable? And will sworn depositions be the only way to make factual determinations on these breaches?
Other parties contributing to the Mooring Recommendation (s), and some voting to support it, also appear to be affected financially. Those who are equity members in yacht clubs, and those subject to the City's Residential Pier/dock Permit Fees, will logically benefit from their rates being kept much lower, and not having fees assessed on the space their boats at Residential Piers occupy.

And I hope by now, that you are all fully aware of the difficulty encountered in determining that Mooring Permits held/managed under the Yacht Clubs and Lido Isle Community Association, would be insulated from fee increases under the recent Harbor Commission Recommendation. Again, the process has been irretrievably damaged by contributions and actions of persons appearing to receive direct benefit, as a consequence of their contributions and actions.

Timelines related to various Netzer Appraisal Reports, and other interactions with The City, have also raised serious concern among many. Addressing materials sourced from various Public Records Requests, some of which I've seen presented at local City, and Yacht Club meetings:

The timing of Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham's e-mail of July 22, 2020, as related to the subsequent Mooring Appraisal RFP, is quite concerning. The RFP for the Appraisal wasn't even "Posted" by the City, until April of the following year, and "Awarded on August 3, 2021 ", after four firms had submitted bids. (Attachment E)
Harbor Commissioner Cunningham, seemingly knowing nearly a year in advance, that James B. "Jim" Netzer would be the Appraiser selected, and knowing from "two long conversations with Jim" prior to his selection, that the resulting appraisal would deviate substantially from Mr. Netzer's January 6, 2016 Appraisal, which stated:

"The Ratio analysis attempts to estimate the market rentfor moorings as compared to the rentfor similar slip spaces in the same marina or harbor.

As shown in the analysis, the ratio can vary dramatically (25% to 92%) and, while a potential renter could take this into consideration (cost of a slip v. cost of a mooring), it is notjudged to be a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent."
tends towards indication of a rigged selection process, and a curated appraisal.

Commissioner Cunningham, also took it upon himself to e-mail the chosen Appraiser online listings of Mooring Permits purportedly for sale. This looks to me, like further effort to influence the Appraisal. I do not believe that Commissioner Cunningham is "Real Property Administration staff'.

And although boats on shore moorings are restricted to no more than 8'wide, and 18' long, other communications indicate that Mr. Netzer tells the Harbormaster that he uses a length of 36' long for his calculations. The Harbormaster, subsequent to having entered into that agreement that he ""does notparticipate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use orfinancial arrangements associated with offshore moorings", responds in kind, with likewise inflated numbers, writing that a boat on a 40' Mooring would typically be 14' wide, and 40' long (Note: Boats with rectangular footprints are very uncommon). The Harbormaster then opines, that the actual square footage of Tide/Submerged lands a mooring would encumber, could be 20'x 60', or 20' x 80'.

Important to understand, is that boats on moorings do not continually occupy any such amount of space, and that other Tide/Submerged land users regularly transition through, and use much of that supposed mooring space for their activities. The City, and parties holding Residential Pier/Dock Permits on the other hand, occupy a generally fixed space, and often proclaim that the spaces they use over public lands, are not to be used by anyone else. (Attachment F) Other e-mails show the Harbormaster telling the Appraiser to price a 25' Mooring at the 30' rate. Similarly, the Phase -in documents the City provided State Lands, applies the rate for 20', well-appointed marina slips at the City's Balboa Yacht Basin Marina ($32.23 per If), to the 18', challenging to use, permitted shore moorings. An apparent pattern of basing conclusions on calculations using more space than is actually encumbered by moored vessels, in conjunction with applying higher fee rates to lower tier permits, unrealistically inflates the resultant prices.

And did State Lands know, that in early October of 2023, Jim Netzer, acting for The Newport Aquatic Center (Hereafter NAC) was involved in negotiating from the City, a 3 to 5 decade long, "Amended and Restarted" zero fee ground lease, for acres of prime, waterfront sovereign land? And that the City waived its policy F-7 requirement, that full fair market value be obtained under said lease? (Mr. Netzer, along with the Harbormaster's brother, are/were Board Members of the NAC. Mr. Netzer's family members, also have close ties with the NAC) Just a couple of weeks subsequent to this no fee lease, a Microsoft Teams meeting, captioned "Appraisal Kick -Off Call Off -shore Moorings" was arranged.

City personnel, including the Harbormaster and Commissioner Cunningham, as well as the Appraiser, were to participate. The timing of the no -cost lease, so closely coinciding with the kick-off for an Appraisal Report that Harbor Commissioner Cunningham said would quote — unquote "look much different", along with Mr. Netzer's reversal of his 2016 position that a slip to mooring ratio is not judged a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent, and the involvement of multiple parties with financial interests, who thus, should not have even been involved, raises numerous, serious concerns, quid pro quo being one. And if events in the timeline do not rise to a level of impropriety, I think they certainly rise to the level of the appearance of impropriety. Mayor and Council should neither condone, nor endorse this.

And the revelation via City agenda materials, that were posted over a major holiday weekend, where multiple news outlets have reported record numbers of people travelling, and being away from home, that the Mooring Fee Increase Recommendation, has now morphed into City proposals to phase out Live - aboard Permits; and/or phase out Permit transferability; and/or have the City confiscate all mooring permits at no cost, comes across as very underhanded. It harkens back to a Netzer Appraisal Report, being dated December 26, 2023, between two other major holidays. If this tact of holiday timing is intentional strategy, I would question the ethics of it. It it's merely coincidence, I would question the lack of insight into the optics of City conduct it can create among members of the public and media.

Until this most recent misguided, and deceptive Harbor Commission rate increase Recommendation was begun, Mooring Permitees, for use of the same State resource, were willingly paying multiples times more in rates than Residential Pier Permitees. Oftentimes, the moorings and piers are not even very distant from one another. It is difficult to extract fairness from this disparity, but it was being accepted. As more information has come to light during the progression of the Recommendation though, the level of unfairness has become more and more pronounced and concerning, to Permitees and State agencies.

How could Harbor Commissioner Vice Chair Ira Beer, in good conscience, have repeatedly implied that Mooring Permittees, who are paying more in fees, might be beneficiaries of unconstitutional gifts of the use of State lands, while at the same time, Decisionmakers, and some seated with him on the dais, are paying no fees for the actual space their vessels occupy? How could have each Harbor Commissioner, in good conscience, have ethically endorsed increasing the rate disparity and discrimination even further?
And in the same vein, how can The Harbor Commission, some of whom are equity members in Newport Yacht Clubs, think that it's "fair" to not subject themselves or their peer's Clubs, and The Lido Isle Community Association, to the same excessive fee increases they propose for Mooring Permittees unaffiliated with these exclusive entities?
When I had previously remarked in Council Chambers, about a dislike of hypocrisy, I had not then realized to what levels that hypocrisy extended with some here. Policyrnakers and Decisionmakers, crafting scenarios wherein they, their peers, associates, friends and/or neighbors benefit from lower rents/fees, and/or are insulated from rent/fee increases, to me, is clearly wrongful and harmful. Now having a better idea of the level of hypocrisy, greed, and self- interest, I contemplate Mayor and Council's recent closed sessions to discuss "SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", and remark.... Ya think?!?!?!?!? Sincerely, and apologetically,
EL', ",,�
Adam Leverenz
[email protected]

Public Comment
Attachment A:

California State Lands
Commission Staff
Report:
21 pgs.

Meeting Date: 06/23/22
Work Order Number: W27256
Staff: K. Foster
Staff Report 39
PARTY:

California State Lands Commission
PROPOSED ACTION:

Approve the 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark rental rate and the Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rate.

LAND TYPE AND LOCATION:

Sovereign land in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.

STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:

AUTHORITY:

Public Resources Code sections 6005, 6216, 6301, 6501.1, 6503, 6503.5, and 6505.5; California Code of Regulations, title 2, sections 2000 and 2003.

The California Constitution specifically prohibits the Legislature from making or authorizing any gift of public money or thing of value to any individual, municipality, or corporation (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 6). A "thing of value" includes the use of State-owned land for private benefit.

The Commission has broad discretion in all aspects of leasing state lands, including the method or amount of rent that is most appropriate, and how rent should be adjusted during the term. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 6501.1, 6503, 6503.5; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 2000, 2003.) Rents must be in the best interests of the State, and may be based on one or more of the following methods, including, but not limited to:
0 9 percent of the appraised value of the leased land.
0 A percentage of annual gross income, where the percentage is based on an analysis of the market for like uses and other relevant factors. 0 A comparison to rents for other similar land or facilities.

Staff Report 39 (Continued)
• Benchmarks for regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, with benchmark rental rates to be based on analysis of similar or substitute facilities in the local area.
• Other such methods or information that are based on commonly accepted appraisal practices and principles; and for leases for recreational piers or buoys, rent shall be based on local conditions and local fair annual rental values. (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6503, 6503.5.) The Commission may consider the amount of rent the State would receive under various rental methods, and whether relevant, reliable, and comparable data are available concerning the value of the leased land in determining which rent method should apply. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (d) (1), (2).) PUBLIc TRUST AND STATE'S BEST INTERESTS:

Benchmarks are used to establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, mostly private recreational improvements within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a) (5).) The use of benchmarks improves the consistency, transparency, and efficiency in how the Commission establishes rent for large numbers of similar leases, saving time, resources, and money for both the applicant and the State.

Periodic benchmark adjustments assures that the people of the State are fairly compensated according to current market rates for the private use of State-owned land, consistent with the California Constitution. Generally, staff recommends updates to the benchmarks every 5 years.

The Commission has two types of benchmarks for rental rates:
• Category 1, which is generally applied to private docks, piers, and buoys. • Category 2, which is generally applied to cantilevered decks, sundecks, or other non -water dependent uses.

This staff report addresses the Category 1 benchmark for the Southern California coastal region for Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, and the Category 2 benchmark for Huntington Harbour recreational use leases that include cantilevered decks.

METHODOLOGY:

The Commission has been using the Category I Southern California benchmark since the early 1980s and the Category 2 Huntington Harbour benchmark since 2004. Both benchmarks were last updated in October 2016, when the Category 1 rate was set at $0.374 per square foot, and the Category 2 rate was set at $31.50 per square foot.
2 Staff Report 39 (Continued)

CATEGORY I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BENCHMARK
Leases are issued by the Commission for private recreational facilities such as docks, piers, and buoys/mooring poles. These facilities offer many of the same amenities as a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. In this manner, these privately owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial marina berth/buoy. Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair return and a fair rental value is based on what an individual would pay for a similar substitute site in a commercial marina (principle of substitution). Since a Commission -leased site for a privately -owned pier or dock is a reasonable substitute for a marina berth, a lessee occupying state land should pay a similar rate for the leased site as the state would receive for leasing the land to a commercial marina.

The current methodology for setting rent for berthing vessels at docks and piers occupying state-owned sovereign land is based on the principle of substitution described above.

The first step in setting a Category 1 berthing rate benchmark is to survey local marinas to determine their rental rates. Marinas usually rent their berths on a per - linear -foot basis, based on the length of the berth or vessel. For benchmark purposes, the average surveyed rental rate is used. The rate is multiplied by the average or typical berth length as indicated in the survey data. Based on these inputs, the annual gross income is calculated. For Category 1 benchmarks, the State's rent is based on a 5 percent rate of return of this annual gross income, which represents a comparable fair market compensation rate for the use of State- owned sovereign land. The State's rent is then converted to a per -square -foot basis using a table calculated by the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways 2005 publication titled "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities" (DBW berthing publication). This publication provides formulas and tables for calculating the submerged land area needed to accommodate various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other variables, the formulas account for the berth length, berth layout (single or double), and the type of vessel (powerboat or sailboat). The publication can be requested from the Department of Boating and Waterways ( http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/pages/28702/files/GuideO5.pdf) .

The Southern California Benchmark appraisal survey, attached as Exhibit A, consists of 42 marinas located in the four counties covered by the benchmark. The survey found that the average berth/slip size in the coverage area is approximately 37 linear feet. A 37-foot length was also used in the 2016 benchmark. Staff believes that marina layouts have not changed significantly since the last benchmark.

Berthing rates are reported on a per -linear -foot basis. The berthing rate, based on survey data collected within the coverage area, ranged from $11.90 to $65.86 per 3 Staff Report 39 (Continued)
linear foot with an average of $23.40 per linear foot. The benchmark rental rate for berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth length by the average rental rate. This product is then multiplied by 12 months to arrive at the gross annual income. The gross annual income is then multiplied by 5 percent to arrive at the income attributable to the submerged land. That amount is then converted to a per square foot basis for rent -setting purposes using the DBW berthing publication described above. The submerged land area used in this benchmark analysis is based on a double berth layout, which represents the typical and most economically efficient marina berth layout in the area and represents an average of the powerboat and sailboat areas.

From DBW berthing publication data, a submerged area of 1, 153 square feet is needed to accommodate the 37-foot average slip length. Taking all the previously described inputs into account, the rental rate for the proposed Southern California Benchmark is calculated as follows:
$10,389.60/berth/year x 5 percent of gross income = $519.48 $519.48 - 1,153 square feet = $0.451 /square foot
Proposed Category I Southern California Benchmark Rental Rate = $0.451 per square foot
The 2016 Benchmark was set at $0.374 per square foot. As proposed, the new benchmark rate of $0.451 per square foot represents an overall increase of just under 8 cents ($0.077) per square foot.

Impact Area:

The impact area is an additional area, beyond the physical footprint of a structure, where a lessee seeks authorization to conduct activities. For recreational structures used for the docking and mooring of boats within the benchmark's coverage area, the impact area is generally a nine -foot -wide strip along the mooring areas or under a boat lift. In Huntington Harbour, it is generally the area between the bulkhead and the pierhead line that is not covered by the dock, because of the occupation of the improvements, these are areas that are generally viewed by the public as private and where the lessee generally enjoys exclusive use. Accordingly, these areas are included in a lease and rent is charged thereon. The Commission's leasing regulations explicitly allow for this. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (e) (2)).

CATEGORY 2 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR BENCHMARK
Category 2 benchmarks are based on nearby upland land values because the improvements (cantilevered decks, sundecks, or certain other non -water M

Staff Report 39 (Continued)
dependent encroachments) represent an extension of the private backyard of the upland residence —a purpose unrelated to the docking and mooring of boats.

Commission appraisal staff uses the following general process to establish and update a Category 2 benchmark. First, staff conducts research to identify recent nearby upland property sales. The initial research seeks to identify land value only because the property being leased is the underlying sovereign land, as well as the area above the sovereign land, and not the privately -owned improvements. If vacant land sales are not available, then the assessed improvement values are subtracted from sales price of improved properties to reflect the land value of the sale property. Next, staff analyzes the sales data and determines a per -square -foot value representative of the area. The benchmark is calculated by applying a 9 percent annual rate of return to the appraised value of the leased land pursuant to title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 2003, subdivision (a) (1).

The Category 2 benchmark may then be discounted to reflect that the sovereign land to be leased may not have the same utility or intensity of use as the upland properties from which the data were drawn, due to topography or other physical characteristics, the nature of the sovereign land use, certain legal constraints, or the upland owner's decision, but nevertheless still contributes to the value of the upland property.

Using the methodology described above, Commission appraisal staff researched 19 home sales adjoining sovereign land along the Main and Midway Channels within Huntington Harbour. The sales occurred between February 2018 and December 2021, with a sales range of $1,175,000 to $6,650,000 and a corresponding land value range of $110 to $697 per square foot. The concluded average land value based on these sales figures is $458 per square foot. Taking all the previously described inputs into account, the proposed undiscounted rental rate for the Huntington Harbour Benchmark is calculated as follows:
$458 x 9% = $41.22 per square foot
Proposed Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark Rental Rate = $41.22 per square foot
The 2016 Benchmark was set at $31.50 per square foot. As proposed, the new benchmark rate of $41.22 per square foot represents an increase of $9.72 per square foot.

The undiscounted rate applies to features such as enclosed cantilevered decks because, unlike an open deck, an enclosed deck has the full capacity to be utilized as residential living space, and thus should be given no reduction in utility or intensity of use as compared to the upland land value. For features such as an 5 Staff Report 39 (Continued)
unenclosed cantilevered deck, Commission staff recommends the application of a discount of up to 75 percent to reflect the intensity of use of the sovereign lands occupied. This approach is consistent with how staff applies discounts for similar facilities throughout the state.

CONCLUSION:

Staff's methodologies for setting the proposed Category I Southern California and Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rates are consistent with the methodology used for the Commission's other similar benchmarks, as well as all the relevant statutes and regulations that govern the Commission's rent -setting authority. Staff's recommended benchmark rates represent a fair and equitable rate for each type of use based on the most current and relevant data available.

Approval of the new benchmark rental rates will not result in a change in the use of, or substantially interfere with or impact Public Trust resources. Staff believes that each benchmark provides a reasonable and consistent method for determining rents in their geographic coverage areas and are in the best interests of the State.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION:

1. In 2011, Chapter 585, Statutes of 2011 became law and repealed Public Resources Code section 6503.5 that had allowed rent-free use of state land by certain private parties for their recreational piers. It replaced the former section with a new section 6503.5 which provides that the Commission "shall charge rent for a private recreational pier constructed on state lands."

2. In 2014, the Commission adopted amendments to Sections 1900, 2002, and 2003 under articles 1 and 2 of title 2, division 3, chapter 1 of the California Code of Regulations that included regulations on rent -setting methods approving the use of benchmarks and the application of the Consumer Price Index (Item 5, January 23, 2014).

3. This action is consistent with Goal 4 of the Commission's Strategic Plan "Meeting Evolving Public Trust Needs," Section 3 - "Maintain fiscal integrity through transparency, accountability, and: a. Efficient and effective management of the revenue -generation portfolio." This action is also consistent with Goal 6 "Committing to Collaborative Leadership," Section 2 - Advance innovation and create clarity of direction by offering continual, robust opportunities for stakeholder and public engagement, and institutionalizing this relationship building so that the process and relationships live through the Commission and not just through individual staff members or leaders.

Staff Report 39 (Continued)

4. Approval of the 2022 Category I Southern California and Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rates is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act because it is an administrative action that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Authority: Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15378, subdivision (b) (5).

EXHIBITS:

A. 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark Appraisal B. 2022 Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark Appraisal RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is recommended that the Commission:

PUBLIc TRUST AND STATE'S BEST INTERESTS:

Find that approval of the benchmarks will not result in a change in the use of, or impacts to, Public Trust resources; is consistent with the common law Public Trust Doctrine; and is in the best interests of the State.

AUTHORIZATION:

1. Approve the 2022 Category I Southern California Benchmark rental rate of $0.451 per square foot, effective June 23, 2022.

2. Approve the 2022 Category 2 Huntington Harbour Benchmark rental rate of $41.22 per square foot, effective June 23, 2022.

Exhibit A
State of California
Memorandum
State Lands Commission
Date: May 6, 2022
To: Brian Bugsch, Chief
Land Management Division
Grace Kato, Assistant Chief
Land Management Division
From: Chaun Wong
Associate Property Appraiser
Land Management Division
Subject: Southern California Category 1 Benchmark 2022
Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego Counties
The Southern California Category 1 Benchmark was last updated by staff of the California State Lands Commission (Commission) in 2016. The current update follows essentially the same methodology as used in the prior benchmark. Reference is made to the 2016 study for additional background material that may be needed for the reader to more fully understand what the benchmark is used for and how it is set.

The recommended benchmark is summarized in the following table with the 2016 benchmark.

Table 1. Southern California Benchmark Summary
Benchmark Date
Rental Rate (Per Sq. Ft.)
2016
$0.374
2022
$0.451
An appraisal is the act or process of developing an opinion of value that must be numerically expressed as a specific amount, as a range of numbers, or as a relationship to a previous value opinion or numerical benchmark. This report constitutes an appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Accordingly, this appraisal has been performed and the report has been prepared in substantial compliance with USPAP. The compiled research, analyses, and conclusions presented in this appraisal represent a correlation of market rents into benchmark rental rates for private recreational facilities (e.g., docks and piers) located on Southern California. The benchmark is intended to be used by Commission staff for rent setting purposes.

Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
improvements or uses in regions where benchmarks have been approved, staff will recommend an annual rent based on the applicable benchmark and the lease area.

Benchmark rental rates are based on an analysis of similar uses or substitute facilities in the local area. Generally, staff recommends updates to the benchmarks every 5 years. The use of benchmarks improves consistency and transparency throughout a geographic region, improves staff efficiency in setting and adjusting rent for large numbers of leases, and saves time and money for both the applicant and the State.

Introduction
Leases are issued by the California State Lands Commission for private recreational facilities — such as docks and piers — located on sovereign lands. These facilities offer a substitute for the essential functions of a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. In a market where there is significantly more demand than supply, these private structures afford the upland owners guaranteed access to mooring facilitates that they may not otherwise be able to obtain from commercial marinas. In this manner, these privately -owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial marina slip.

Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair rental value in this analysis is based on what an individual would pay for a similar substitute site in a commercial marina.

Since a Comm ission-leased site for a privately -owned pier or dock substitutes for the essential functions of a marina slip, a lessee of the state land should pay a similar amount for the leased site as the state would receive for leasing the land to a commercial marina.

Scope
The scope of the research included the following-
• Identifying marinas with boat slips in the Southern California area. • Surveying the number and type of moorings at marinas (berths / slips), occupancy rate, mooring sizes, and rates.
• Compiling the survey results into averages for slip size and rate. • Using the "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities" publication (last updated July 2005) from the State Department of Boating and Waterways to determine the amount of submerged land area necessary to accommodate a given mooring size.
• Calculating the annual rental rate(s) using the above information and State valuation guidelines.

There are estimated to be 118 total marinas in the Southern California area. In statistics, for very large populations, a random sampling method provides the best chance of an unbiased representative sample. Random marinas throughout the regions were contacted during the course of the survey. Marinas were contacted via phone California State Lands Commission 2

Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
and/or email. Some marina operators did not want to participate in the survey. Some marina operators did not provide a clear breakdown of their berthing rental rates and/or berth sizes. Other marinas contacted during the course of the survey do not rent their berths on a long-term basis. As of April 11, 2022, a total of 42 marinas responded to the survey. Each of these marinas cooperated to varying degrees and provided relevant information for study purposes. A deliberate effort was made to make the samples representative of each target population. While not comprehensive, this survey is believed to be representative of the total marinas within each study area.

Methodolo
In order to determine the benchmark rent for a leased area (pier, dock, etc.), it is necessary to determine the income that can typically be generated by a commercial marina; the area occupied by the average or typical marina slip in a well -designed marina; and the rent for that average or typical sized boat. An annual rate of return is then applied to the product of the above.

The Commission typically charges 5 percent of gross income for boat berthing for sites leased to commercial marina operators.

Berth / Sho Rent
The Southern California Benchmark consists of 42 marinas located in Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). For purposes of this benchmark, the boundaries of the Southern California region are generally defined as the Ventura / Los Angeles County lines to the north, the Los Angeles / Orange / San Diego County lines to the east, the San Diego County line to the south, and the Pacific Coast of Ventura / Los Angeles / Orange / San Diego Counties to the west.

The average berth size of the marinas surveyed in the Southern California region is approximately 37 linear feet. Similarly, a 37-foot length was also used in the 2016 Southern California Benchmark.

The responding marinas reported a total of 14,235 slips, or an average of 339 slips per marina. The average occupancy was reported at 96.3%, a moderate increase from the

88.5% reported in 2016.

Berthing rates are reported on a per linear foot basis. For all of the areas listed above, the berthing rate, based on data collected, ranged from $11.90 to $65.86 per linear foot.

The lower rents were generally found in marinas located in Oxnard and City of Ventura of Ventura County-, Marina del Rey and Wilmington of Los Angeles County-, and City of San Diego of San Diego County. The higher rents were generally found in marinas located in Newport Beach of Orange County. The average rent overall is $23.40 per linear foot. This represents a 20.62% increase over the $19.40 per linear foot used in the 2016 Benchmark.

California State Lands Commission 3

Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
The benchmark rental rate for berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth length by the average monthly rental rate. This product is then multiplied by 12 months to arrive at the gross annual income. The gross annual income is multiplied by 5% to get the income attributable to the submerged land. The income attributable to the submerged land is then divided by the amount of submerged land needed to accommodate the average berth length within a marina.

The submerged land area needed to accommodate an average berth is found in a publication entitled "Layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft and Berthing Facilities" by the California Department of Boating and Waterways last updated in 2005.

This publication provides formulas and tables for calculating the submerged land area needed to accommodate various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other variables, the formulas take into account the berth length, berth layout (single vs. double), and the type of vessel (powerboat vs. sailboat). The submerged land area used in this benchmark analysis is based on a double berth layout (on the premise that it represents the typical marina berth layout in the area and is the most economically efficient for the marina operator) and represents an average of the powerboat and sailboat areas.

From the tables in the publication, a submerged area of 1, 153 square feet is shown as being necessary to accommodate the 37-foot average slip length indicated by the survey for Southern California. Taking all of the aforementioned into account, the current benchmark rental rate for Southern California is calculated as follows:
• Average berth rate: $23.40
• Average boat length: 37 linear feet
• Submerged land area necessary to accommodate a 37-foot boat slip: 1, 153 SF • Percent of income attributable to the submerged land: 5 percent 37' x $23.40/linear foot x 12 months = $10,389.60
$10,389.60 x 5% of gross income = $519.48
$519.48 + 1,153 square feet = $0.451 per square foot rental rate Benchmark Rental Rate =
$0.451 per sq. ft.

The indicated benchmark rental rate for Southern California area is $0.451 per square foot. In contrast, the 2016 benchmark was $0.374 per square foot. The 2022 benchmark therefore represents an overall increase of $0.077 (20.6%) from the 2016 benchmark.

California State Lands Commission 4

Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
Table 2. 1. Marina Survey - Southern California
Number
Name
Total
Slips
Occupancy
Rate
Occupied
Slips
Average
Length
Average
Rate
Ventura
1 Bahia Marina
84 96%
81 38
$17.61
2 Channel Islands Harbor Marina
418
90%
376
38 $16.39
3 Peninsula Yacht Marina
310
87%
270
35 $13.82
4 Vintage Marina
384
98%
376
35 $14.30
5 Westport Marina
61 87%
53 30
$11.90
6 Ventura Harbor Village Marina
103
100%
103
63 $13.44
7 Ventura Isle Marina
570
100%
570
40 $18.03
8 Ventura West Marina
542
94%
509
36 $16.64
Averages

94.0%
39 $15.27
Los Angeles
9 Alamitos Bay Marina
1,634
96%
1,569
36 $18.06
10 Long Beach Shoreline Marina
1,605
93%
1,493
37 $18.39
11 Rainbow Harbor and Marina
89 89%
79 35
$17.67
12 Anchorage 47
253
90%
228
29 $19.17
13 Catalina Yacht Anchorage
120
88%
106
27 $16.05
14 Dolphin Marina
424
97%
411
32 $19.12
15 Esprit Marina
216
94%
203
46 $31.81
16 Holiday Harbor Marina
182
94%
171
25 $14.12
17 Marina del Rey Marina
304
85%
258
44 $31.41
18 Neptune Marina
161
81%
130
32 $20.10
19 Panay Way Marina
139
96%
133
30 $17.82
20 The Boat Yard Marina
106
100%
106
31 $20.71
21 Villa del Mar Marina
189
100%
189
41 $21.45
22 California Yacht Marina - Cabrillo
Marina
884
75%
663
36 $16.28
23 Pacific Yacht Landing
174
100%
174
31 $12.17
24 Yacht Haven Marina
161
99%
159
39 $12.02
Averages

92.3%
34 $19.15
California State Lands Commission

Southern California Category 1 Benchmark
Table 2.2. Marina Survey - Southern California
Number
Name
Total
Slips
Occupancy
Rate
Occupied
Slips
Average
Length
Average
Rate
Orange
25 Dana West Marina
846
100%
846
30 $24.48
26 Huntington Harbor Marina
188
100%
188
35 $23.47
27 Sunset Aquatic Marina
229
100%
229
33 $16.67
28 Balboa Yacht Basin
172
100%
172
36 $35.95
29 Bayside Village Marina
124
100%
124
28 $34.38
30 Lido Marina Village
28 100%
28 56
$65.86
31 Newport Dunes Resort and Marina
405
97%
393
30 $48.52
Averages

99.6%
35 $35.62
San Diego
32 California Yacht Marina - Glorietta
Bay arina
100
98%
98 39
$22.00
33 Pier 32 Marina
246
100%
246
43 $23.74
34 Oceanside Harbor
763
100%
763
32 $16.96
35 Dana Landing Marina
78 100%
78 36
$14.34
36 Half Moon Marina
128
100%
128
37 $21.42
37 Kona Kai Marina and Resort
526
99%
521
47 $33.12
38 Marina Village Marina
611
100%
611
30 $16.95
39 Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina
394
100%
394
43 $25.77
40 Point Loma Marina
42 100%
42 57
$37.93
41 Shelter Cove Marina
143
94%
134
38 $25.57
42 Sun Harbor Marina
99 100%
99 45
$21.38
Averages
99%
41 $23.56
Overall Averages

96.3%
37 $23.40
California State Lands Commission

Exhibit B
State of California
Memorandum
To: Brian Bugsch, Chief
Land Management Division
Grace Kato, Assistant Chief
Land Management Division
DS
From: Chaun Wong E�fi
Associate Property Appraiser
Land Management Division
State Lands Commission
Date: May 6, 2022
Subject: Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark 2022 - Rental rate for non - water dependent use areas extending on and over sovereign land in Huntington Harbour, Orange County, California
As requested, I have conducted research relevant to establishing a benchmark rental rate for non -water dependent use areas extending onto and over sovereign land in Huntington Harbour, Orange County, California. These non -water dependent uses consist of private decks and other residential -related improvements that extend onto and over sovereign lands and essentially represent extensions of the usable area of the adjoining residential lots.

An appraisal is the act or process of developing an opinion of value that must be numerically expressed as a specific amount, as a range of numbers, or as a relationship to a previous value opinion or numerical benchmark. This report constitutes an appraisal as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The compiled research, analyses, and conclusions presented in this appraisal represents a correlation of residential land values into benchmark rental rates for non - water dependent use areas located on Huntington Harbour. The benchmark is intended to be used by Commission staff in negotiations with lessees. It should also be noted that this appraisal has been performed and the report has been prepared in substantial compliance with USPAP as it relates to value of sovereign land. Presented on the following pages are the introduction, the scope of the research, and discussions of the pertinent findings resulting in the benchmark rental rate.

Benchmarks establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with concentrations of similar facilities within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5)) For proposed leases involving certain types of improvements or uses in regions where benchmarks have been approved, staff will recommend an annual rent based on the applicable benchmark and the lease area.

Benchmark rental rates are based on an analysis of similar land uses or substitute facilities in the local area. Generally, staff recommends updates to the benchmarks

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
every 5 years. The use of benchmarks improves consistency and transparency throughout a geographic region, improves staff efficiency in setting and adjusting rent for large numbers of leases, and saves time and money for both the applicant and the State. The Huntington Harbour Category 11 benchmark was last updated on September 23,2016.

Introduction
The State Lands Commission is responsible for leasing sovereign lands at Huntington Harbour. Huntington Harbour is an exclusive waterfront development located in the City of Huntington Beach in northwestern Orange County. The development is predominantly single family residential in nature and consists of several man-made islands and peninsulas situated around a series of channels. The islands and peninsulas have been developed with high -end waterfront homes, many of which have boat docks and cantilevered decks.

The development was originally designed by the Huntington Harbour Corporation in the early 1960s. It was created by dredging and filling the sloughs and marshlands lying in and around Sunset Bay. Prior to commencement of the project, the developer entered into two agreements (BLA 18 and SLL 34) with the State Lands Commission. From these agreements, the State Lands Commission retained fee ownership of the Main and Midway Channels, while most of the remaining water -covered and land areas are privately owned.

Within the Main and Midway Channels of Huntington Harbour there are private decks and other non -water dependent uses that extend onto and over sovereign lands. This benchmark is intended to address these improvements and uses. The rent for the boat dock improvements is covered separately by the Southern California Category 1 benchmark.

MethodoLqU
The Commission's authority to lease lands and charge rent comes from the California State Constitution, the Public Resources Code, and the California Code of Regulations.

The Commission's mandate to charge rent comes from the Gift Clause of the California State Constitution, which states in part that:
"The Legislature shall have no power to ... make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation whatever..." Cal. Const. Art. XVI -6.

Section 6503 of the Public Resources Code states that:
"The Commission shall appraise the lands and fix the annual rent or other consideration thereof."
California State Lands Commission 2

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
The California Code of Regulations' provides the Commission with broad discretion in all aspects of leasing.
"Leases or permits may be issued to qualified applicants and the Commission shall have broad discretion in all aspects of leasing including category of lease or permit and which use, method or amount of rental is most appropriate ... based on what it deems to be in the best interest of the State"
The Regulations then outlines the types of leases and the methods of setting rent for each. Of these, the "9% of the appraised value of the leased land,12 method is considered the most directly applicable. The land to be leased is sovereign land located waterward of the low water mark. Since there is not an active real estate market for sovereign land, the basis for the benchmark rental rate is the adjoining upland property.

At Huntington Harbour, the adjoining upland property generally consists of single-family homes on residential lots. The rent to be set is based on the value of the underlying land and does not include the value of any improvements. Thus, for valuation purposes, the value of waterfront residential lots at Huntington Harbour is the basis of the rental rate.

The market value of residential land is typically estimated through use of the Sales Comparison Approach. In this approach, recent sales and current listings of similar properties are compared to the subject on the basis of pertinent factors such as location, size, shape, etc. Typically, an indication of value is then concluded based on a comparative analysis of these factors. Waterfront residential lots are typically valued on either a per -lot or on a per -waterfront -foot basis. However, because the lease areas generally do not represent a full residential lot, the unit of comparison used is the price per square foot of land area. Per Regulations, rent is then set based on 9% of the appraised value of the leased land. It should be noted that because this is a benchmark appraisal — intended to be applied to a number of different lease areas — there is no specific subject property or lease area. Accordingly, there are no specific adjustments (for location, size, shape, etc.) made. Instead, the benchmark rental rate is intended to represent the general characteristics of the benchmark's geographic area.

Market Value of Upland Property
On LandVision3, a search was made to find recent sales of vacant residential lots, typical in size, fronting the Main or Midway Channels of Huntington Harbour in Orange County. However, due to its built-up nature, no comparable sales of vacant waterfront 1 Title 2, Administration, Division 3, State Property Operations, Article 2 Section 2000, General (b).
2 Title 2, Administration, Division 3, State Property Operations, Article 2 Section 2003(a)(1).
3 LandVision is a map -based real estate application that provides real estate, government, and many other industries with comprehensive map -based property search, analysis, management, and presentation capabilities.

California State Lands Commission 3

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
residential lots were found. Rather than use comparable sales that do not front the water, which would necessitate adjustments for location, an allocation method 4 is employed. In this analysis, residential land values are removed from recent sales of single-family houses in the Huntington Harbour area through use of the improvement percentage assigned by the Orange County Assessor's Office. For instance, if a house sold for $1,000,000 and had an improvement percentage of 40%, then the allocated value of the land is 60%, or $600,000. For analysis purposes, the unit of comparison used is the price per square foot of land area.

Summarized in the Comparable Sales Table (see Table 2) are the pertinent details of 29 sales of single-family residences fronting the Main or Midway Channels of Huntington Harbour in Orange County. The sales took place between February 2018 and December 2021. According to the Indications of Comparable Sales Table (see Table 3), the lot sizes range from 2,820 to 9,000 square feet, with a mean of 6,088 square feet and a median of 6,000 square feet. The sale prices for the waterfront lots ranged from a low of $1,175,000 to a high of $6,650,000, with a mean of $3,588,034, and a median of $3,350,000. According to the Assessor's allocations, the value of the land in these transactions accounted for between 48.93% and 97.35% of the total price.

Based on these percentages, the value of unimproved residential waterfront land lies between $110 and $697 per square foot. The mean unit value is $456 per square foot, while the median is $460 per square foot.

Analysis of the sales revealed no recognizable trends relating to typical lot area and land value relationships (i.e., unit prices decreasing as sizes increase). The lack of a size/price relationship is illustrated in the following table. The presentation of the sales is based on the lot area (SF) of the sales, going from smallest to largest. 4 Allocation is the general process of separating value between the component parts of a property. A method of estimating land value in which sales of improved properties are analyzed to establish a typical ratio of land value to total property value and this ratio is applied to the property being appraised or the comparable sale being analyzed.

California State Lands Commission 4

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 1. Lot Area to Land Value Per SF Table
Lot Area (SF)
Land Value Per SF
2,820
$406
4,590
$483
4,590
$433
5,000
$673
5,000
$332
5,000
$697
5,000
$525
5,120
$367
5,200
$494
5,500
$373
6,000
$458
6,000
$542
6,000
$463
6,000
$458
6,000
$515
6,039
$337
6,480
$483
6,480
$506
6,480
$390
6,480
$426
6,840
$392
6,882
$379
6,900
$460
7,020
$563
7,080
$531
7,560 $409
7 RAn T14M
7,800 $526
9,000 $110
As mentioned earlier, lease areas impacted by the Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark are of various lot areas, waterfrontages, locations, shapes, topographies, zonings, etc. Due to the uniqueness of each lease area and the lack of significant land value trends relating to the above elements of comparison; no particular sale is deemed a better indicator in concluding a land value benchmark. Therefore, an analysis of the overall dataset is warranted and deemed appropriate in concluding land value for the Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark. As previously stated, the value of the unimproved land lies between $110 and $697 per square foot. The mean unit value is $456 per square foot, while the median is $460 per square foot. Based on all the data California State Lands Commission 5

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
gathered and analyzed, a unit value of $458 per square foot is concluded as reasonable for the typical upland residential property.

Market Value of Upland Property $458 per square foot
Benchmark Rental Rate
Applying the 9% annual rate of return to the previously concluded market value of the upland property results in an annual rental rate of $41.22 per square foot5.

Benchmark Rental Rate
$41.22 per square foot
The concluded value is based on the leased land having the same utility as the adjoining upland. If the leased land does not have the same utility, then a discounted benchmark rental rate may be warranted.
5 Calculated as $458 x 0.09 = $41.22.

California State Lands Commission 6

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 2. Comparable Sales Table
Number
APN
Address
Sale Date
Lot Area
(SF)
Sale Price
% Assessed
Land Value
Land Value
Land Value
Per SF
1 178-652-24
3585 Courtside Cir
12/1/2021
7,020
$5,600,000

70.57%
$3,952,057
$563
2 178-731-20
3322 Venture Dr
9/20/2021
6,480
$3,860,000

81.15%
$3,132,438
$483
3 178-652-23
3581 Courtside Cir
8/27/2021
7,080
$6,200,000

60.58%
$3,756,120
$531
4 178-652-18
3551 Courtside Cir
6/21/2021
9,000
$1,475,000

66.86%
$986,190
$110
5 178-315-34
17011 Bolero Ln
6/16/2021
5,000
$4,600,000

73.10%
$3,362,749
$673
6 178-421-34
3262 Gilbert Dr
6/10/2021
6,882
$3,550,000

73.44%
$2,607,134
$379
7 178-691-31
3622 Venture Dr
6/2/2021
6,000
$3,350,000

82.05%
$2,748,718
$458
8 178-791-11
3186 Portofino Cir
4/23/2021
5,120
$2,500,000

75.18%
$1,879,556
$367
9 178-402-18
3402 Gilbert Dr
4/13/2021
5,000
$2,500,000

66.34%
$1,658,383
$332
10 178-444-03
16402 Grimaud Ln
2/1/2021
7,800
$5,600,000

73.33%
$4,106,552
$526
11 178-652-29
16642 Coral Cay Ln
2/1/2021
6,000
$6,650,000

48.93%
$3,254,143
$542
12 178-713-03
3532 Venture Dr
12/15/2020
6,000
$3,200,000

86.86%
$2,779,623
$463
13 178-791-10
3182 Portofino Cir
11/4/2020
4,590
$2,725,000

81.32%
$2,215,914
$483
14 178-731-24
3362 Venture Dr
10/9/2020
6,480
$3,895,000

84.16%
$3,278,030
$506
15 178-532-43
16921 Park Ave
9/4/2020
2,820
$1,175,000

97.35%
$1,143,895
$406
16 178-402-19
3392 Gilbert Dr
6/4/2020
5,500
$2,225,000

92.13%
$2,049,937
$373
17 178-421-33
3282 Gilbert Dr
11/13/2019
6,039
$2,520,000

80.84%
$2,037,256
$337
18 178-053-06
16681 Carousel Ln
9/19/2019
5,000
$4,368,000

79.77%
$3,484,230
$697
19 178-411-08
16522 Somerset Ln
9/16/2019
6,000
$3,000,000

91.50%
$2,745,041
$458
20 178-371-09
16795 Bolero Ln
8/1/2019
5,200
$2,850,000

90.08%
$2,567,324
$494
21 178-653-38
16872 Coral Cay Ln
1/7/2019
6,840
$3,151,000

85.10%
$2,681,599
$392
22 178-791-09
3176 Portofino Cir
10/30/2018
4,590
$2,395,000

83.00%
$1,987,782
$433
23 178-713-09
3502 Venture Dr
10/18/2018
6,000
$3,734,000

82.78%
$3,091,109
$515
24 178-713-19
3382 Venture Dr
9/10/2018
6,480
$3,000,000

84.25%
$2,527,571
$390
25 178-654-18
16936 Coral Cay Ln
5/17/2018
7,680
$4,900,000

75.81%
$3,714,598
$484
26 178-652-37
16722 Coral Cay Ln
4/25/2018
6,900
$4,645,000

68.26%
$3,170,875
$460
27 178-653-36
16852 Coral Cay Ln
4/20/2018
7,560
$3,460,000

89.47%
$3,095,556
$409
28 178-731-22
3342 Venture Dr
3/20/2018
6,480
$3,300,000

83.66%
$2,760,678
$426
29 178-315-33
17021 Bolero Ln
2/8/2018
5,000
$3,625,000

72.39%
$2,624,053
$525
California State Lands Commission

Huntington Harbour Category 2 Benchmark
Table 3. Indications of Comparable Sales Table
Indications
Lot Area (SF)
Sale Price
% Assessed Land
Value
Land Value
Land Value Per SF
Low
2,820
$1,175,000

48.93%
$986,190
$110
High
9,000
$6,650,000

97.35%
$4,106,552
$697
Mean

6.088
$3,588,034

78.63%
$2,737,900
$456
Median
6,000
$3,350,000

81.15%
$2,748,718
$460
California State Lands Commission

Public Comment
Attachment B:

City of Newport Beach
Fee Information:
5 pgs.

https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpubIisheddocument/73500/638265007588330000 , - E� of 27 1 ;, % I
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
759
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
City of Newport Beach Schedule of Rents, Fines, and Fees (Si - Detailed NmE,rnecemsizaerkm index iCPI I pe,ceivap by which is reflectEd in thE51IFF.

None: Wei include a imni down amouni consiaen with acky, Previous Charges Current Charges
Roundeddown/
Fee Q Policv Level Fee 6 Pol icv Level Variance From Previo

SIMICE KAME

DESCRIPTION
Total or Base Fee
Incrementa I -
(if applicable)
Total OF Base Fee
Incremental -
(III applicable)
Total or Base Fee
Incremental -
fff applicable)

REFERENCE
TYPE
01 Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ercroachment (�5,0 Feet
40800
423.00
15-CO
Council Policy L-12
Reso 91-80 RL 2005-42
Policy
Oceanfront Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ercroachment 5.0-7.5 Feet
612.0
635.00

23.00 Council Policy L-12
Resic 91-80 & 2005-42
Policy
Ocezirifircit Encroachment Annual Permit
Derth Of Ircroachment 7.5-10 Feet
816,00
847.00
31-00
Council Policy L-12
Fiesc 91-80 & 2005-42
Policy
Oceanfront Encroachment Annual Permit
Depth Of Ircroachment 10-15 Feet
1,2200
$ 1,272,00
45,00
Council Policy L-12
Resic 91-80 9, 2005-42
Policy
Parcel Map Check
3,169M
1,286,oc
117,00
M.C� 3.16.030
COS -Fee
Plan Cieck.

Engineering Plan Check Fee - Charged hourly
207.00
215.00

3.00 M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Street Closure Perrnit with Engineeril Review
Temporary Clo5ure Of Public Prop"

79.00 82.00

3.100
M.C. 12.62.020(E)
COS -Fee
Street Closure Permit without EngineerIng Review
Temporary Clc5ure Of Public Property

31.00 32.00
MID
M.C. 12.62.020(E)
COS -Fee
Street Easemert and Vacation Proce55ing Fee
1,035.DD
1,073.00

38.00 M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Temporary No Parking Signs
Temporary No Parking Sil

0.80 0.8c
M.C. 3.36.030
Pass Thru
Tract Plan Check
Up To $ 100,000 i mprovement cost
see notes
see notes
M.C,19.56,020(C)
COS -Fee
Tract Plan Check
$100,00OTo �400,000 improvement cost
BRO-00
$ 8,680.010
M.C,19-56,020(C)
COS -Fee
Tract Plan Check
Over �4010,000 improvement cost
29,710.00
$ 28,710.00
M.C.19.56.020(C)
COS -Fee
Traffic Cortrol Plan Check
8V x 11"/11" x17"; per sheet

79.00 $ 82.00

3.00 M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Traffic Cortrol Plan Check
24" x 36"; per s neet
177.00
$ 183.00

6.CO
M.C. 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Trafic Study
Utilizes outside consultant
see notes
see notes
M.C, 15,40.050E
Pass Thru
Traffic Subdivision Plan Check
Charged nourly
171,00
$ 177.00

6.00 M.C, 3.36.030
COS -Fee
Deposits
Crane Deposit
Refundable
I,W0.00
$ 1,000,00

12.62.030
Deposit
Improverrems Required By Cily
Refundable
mined by Public Works
Memned by Public Works
-
19-36-030
Deposit

PUBLICWORKS - HARBOR RESOURCES
Fees W6 "Yes" undEr CPI column increased by CPI,
unless noted otherwise
Piers
Residential
$0.55 per square foot
$0.56 per square foot
Resolution 2015-10
Rental
11PIan Review
I
I

P. City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division
P.O. Box 4923
Whittier, CA 90607
www.newportbeachca.gov
Name:

Account#
Customer #
Service Address:

Statement Date:

Due Date:

Total Amount Due:

LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
6004537-672618
672618
MOORING: H 610
2/5/2024
3/1/2024
$133.60
March 2024 Payment must be received on or before the due date. Payments not received by the due date are subject to a 10% penalty and revocation. You can avoid penalties by
signing up for the City's AutoPay plan.

City of Newport Beach
Revenue Division
P.O. Box 4923
Whittier, CA 90607
Please provide/update the e-mail address and phone number so the City may contact you about water service problems.

Phon :503-432-6923
E-mail:[email protected]
NPX0205A
4000000409 409/1

LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
3739 LILAC HEIGHTS
SOUTH JORDAN UT84095 USA UT84095-5100

MUNICIPAL SERVICES STATEMENT
Water Conservation Route: MRG
CHARGES: TOTAL:

MOORING OFFSHORE (MONTHLY) $133.60

BILLING SUMMARY
Previous/Beginning Balance $133.60
Payments Applied - THANK YOU $133.60
Total Adjustments $0.00

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
Go online to pay your bills at www.newportbeachca.gov/payments

RETURN THIS PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT
Name:

LEVERENZ, ADAM DOUGLAS
Account #:
6004537-672618
Customer #:
672618
Notice Date:
2/5/2024
Due Date:
3/11/2024
Total Amount Due:
$133.60
Amount Enclosed:

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PO BOX 4923
WHITTIER, CA 90607-4923
00006042024801314556000000133603

From: I W
Sent: March 02, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Revenue Help
Subject: Fee Schedule
Hi,
I'm trying to learn a bit about Pier Permit fees. I've found a current rate of .56 cents per sq. ft. on the city's fee schedule.

Could you please tell me over what area that measurement is calculated? And is there a specific procedure you can refer me to, used determine applicable square footage? Thanksloads:)
From: Miller, Chris
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 1:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fee Schedule
Hi There,
I am responding to your question below concerning the methodology for calculating the square footage. Fortunately, it is easy.

It is simply the overall square footage of the pier, gangway and float times $0.56. Also, this pier permit rate only applies to docks over City Tidelands.

I hope this answers your question.

Thank you,
Chris Miller
Manager
Public Works Department
Office: 949-644-3043
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660

14 boat berthing spaces, at a Beacon Bay HOA affiliated pier/dock, pay a combined total of $841.97 annually for the physical footprint of the pier/dock over public submerged lands. The boats pay no fees for the space they occupy. (A Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner has served on the HOA board) 15 + Residential Pier Permits (1)
rM
Re5iodential Wer Permit > I . i, "I �6
6W
Address: 2 BE --'- CON BAv
Perm it Area Tata I Sq ua re Footage: 1,4T7
+
Pier is not shared by more than one resident. Fee is i r based on total square footage. M!,
ir
Permit Fee
Current Year: $841.97
Pier Permit Exhibit
t I- rl-

A pier/dock, CDP Reconfigured under a Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner's name, pays $352.80 per year (2 Residences x $ 176.40) for the physical footprint of the pier/dock. The boats pay no fees for their footprint.

Public Comment
Attachment C:

Statewide Mooring
Rent/Fee Comparison:
1 Pgo

Mooring fees in Califomia 2024
Yearly fees for 40' boat
Avalon
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy docks provided.

Morro Ba
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.

San Die2o Shelter Island
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.

Monterey Bay
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dingy dock $600 yr
Santa Barbara
Yearly fee to city is
24/7 dingy dock $125 yr
Conclusion:

Avera2e Yearly fees in California
24/7 din2hy docks provided:

Newport Harbor
Mooring permitee must pay
approx. $750 yearly for mooring
maintenance and upkeep.

No din2hy docks provided
After new fee schedule
phase -in:
$523.20.
$1320.
$1538.04. (Maintenance included)
$1000.
$350.00.
$1091.25
$1603.00
$5760.,00*
This rate hike is designed to deny access to all but the wealthiest people, and force middle class boaters out of the harbor. It will put an end to affordable family boating in Newport Harbor.
*This number will increase in proportion to increases in marina fee increases and inflation.

Public Comment
Attachment D:

Harbormaster/
City Attorney/
City Agreement:
1 pgo

Harbormaster Update — April 2022 Activities
May 11, 2022

Page 5 ends

Initiatives were launched resulting in better data capture and statistics reporting.

Future improvements will include customer satisfaction survey data analysis and calls for service location analysis
Participated in the Emergency Operations Response to the following:
• Elly oil spill
• Tsunami warning
o Three severe weather occurrences
o Sewage spill into the harbor
o Out of control stolen boat in the harbor
The Harbormaster has disclosed the arrangements made, at his own expense to alleviate any conflict of interest associated with his ongoing use of an offshore mooring permit.

While undergoing the recruitment process, any and all known possible conflicts of interest were disclosed. Prior to the City making an offer of employment, all such possible conflicts were discussed with the City Attorney. Agreements and arrangements satisfactory to all relevant parties were made during that discussion. The Harbormaster was entrusted and empowered to make determinations going forward related to any conflict disclosures. In support of this arrangement, the Harbormaster:
- does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations related to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings - reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related to offshore mooring permits are made by Real Property Administration staff - does not deliberate or vote on any policy related matters before the Harbor Commission
- is expected to answer questions related to policy implementation and impacts on Harbor Department operations
- hereby discloses that the offshore mooring permit he enjoys is held in an irrevocable trust the beneficiary of which is the Balboa Yacht Club. The Balboa Yacht Club holds all the offshore mooring permits adjacent to the subject mooring - hoping to avoid other conflict of interest concerns also hereby discloses any significant financial interests related to the Balboa Yacht Club including a membership certificate are held in the same irrevocable trust - further discloses that all remaining financial interests in either the subject offshore mooring permit or membership in the Balboa Yacht Club are de minimis ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA

Public Comment
Attachment E:

RFP Invitation #21-53
I nfo:
3 pgs.

City of Newport Beach
Bid Opportunities
Keyword Bid ype Categories Stage
Department Due Date From 1FD.eDateTo Clear
0 C� _Vl�
Found 862 bids
Posted
Project Title
Invitation #
Due Date Remaining
Stage
Formal A
104/0812021
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services
21-53
05/20J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2712021
Landfill Gas �LFG) Control System Operation & Mainle
21-57
05/1 BJ2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2012021
Business License and Permit Processing Software
21-55
05/1 BJ2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
104/2812021
(4) 2021 Ford F-1 50 2W D Su perCa b Truc ks
21-58
05112/2021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
04/1912021
On -Call TraficJTransportalion Engineering
21-09
05/1 OJ2021 03: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
04/15/2021
FY2020-21 Traffic Signal Rehabilitation
C-T791 -1
05flOJ2021 10-00am
Closed
Electronic
104/1312021
Establishment of Eligibility List for Referral of Real Est 21-54
04/2812021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
104/01/2021
Armored Transport Services
21-52
04f28J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/1912021
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS -TESTING, DESIG_
7223-1
04/2012021 02:00pm
Award Pending
Electronic
C3/22/2021
Parking Code Consulting Services
21-43
04f I 3J2021 0 1: 00 pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/1912021

AS -NEEDED SPORT& RECREATIONAL FIELD LANDS
7997-1
04/0812021 02:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
103/2412021
As -Needed Athletic and Recreational Field Services
21-45
04/08J2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
C3/2512021
Dover Shores Traffic Calming Improvements
7998-1
0410BJ2021 10:00am
Closed
Electronic
103/2412021
(3) 2021 Toyota Tacoma 44 Double Cab Vehicles
21-46
04/0712021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic d
02/18/2021
UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N.
7979-1
04107J2021 10-00am
Awarded
Electronic
103/1012021
Generator Maintenance & Repair Services
21-41
04/0612021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
Copyright 0 2024 PlarietE ids. LLC
VendorLine I DarkMode PrivacyPolicy I Terms &Conditions Accessibility

City of Newport Beach
< Back to Bid Sear&
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal ServiceS21-53 Bid Information DccurnerTts Addenda/Ernails Q&A Prospective Bidders Bid Results Showing 4 Bid i?osufts
Vendor
Lea Associates, Inc.
1631 PontiusAvenue
Los Angeles, California 90025
Contact: Robert M. Lea, MAI
Phone: 31C-477-6595
Netzer & Associates
170 E Seventeenth Street, Suite 206
Costa Mesa, California 92527
Contact: James Netzer, MAI
Phone:9496316799
R. P. Laurain & Associates, Inc.
3353 Linden Avenue
Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90807
Contact: John P Laurain
Phone:5624260477
The Dore Group Inc
10 10 U n iversity Aven ue
Suite C207
Sa n Diego, C a I ifc)m ia 921 C 3
Contact: Lance W_ Dore
Phone: 619-933-5040 e)cL 101
A421,_ 0 1-1
qu 1�
Awards
Type Bid Amount Ranking Reoponsive
$0.0000 0 Yes
$0.0000 0 yes
$0.0000 0 Yes
DGS $0.0000 0 Yes
Copyright 0 2024 PlanetBids, LLC VendorLine I Bark Mode I PrivacyPolicy I 11i & Conditions I Accessibilry,

City of Newport Beach
< Back to Bid Search
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal ServiceS21-53 Bid Information DccurnerTts Addenda/Emails Q&A Prcspedive Bidders Bid Results Awurch Awarded on August 3,2021
Please see the attached Notice of Intent to Award (also uploaded under iheAddenda & Emails" tab of this RFP page) for additional details regarding the evaluation and award process for RFP 21-53 Item # Item Code Description UoM
*,' COMpletG PFojeCt
1 Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services Complete Project Wp�_ C ) 1-1
qu 1�
The project has been awarded tc) Net7er & As sociales W a
1 Copyright 0 2024 PlanetBids, LLC VendorLine I Bark Mode I PnvacyPolicy I Ferms & Conditions I Accessiblirty

Public Comment
Attachment F:

A partial selection of images, showing
various members of the public
transitioning through; recreating in;
and using the supposed space
Mooring Permittees are claimed by
the City, to have Private Exclusive Use
of, as compared to the level of Private
Exclusive Use exercised by the City
itself, and select Residential Pier
Permitees:
21 pgs.

'hit,
-wit -
to
.AMC :lt,44�ta

avmm�l Wimp
4L
a
.fl

Ll
-1 � 4*
6-1
1 ot

I
Moo-
It
OovtjmmoqppllF—W- 4
At
moo. a
44 0.4w 40 A6 .. moo
dligr
iC
.-A

14., 1 144
Ap
'Liao
Filimoft -Roft
-4040 1
,TWA -
)6
qh

_� �---
-_-�-�.---►- �..,. "'ice +y
-`' ��-

�'`- . - -
', � s
-�� '�--
� --e T
. `_::

it If,
AD
9 TV W,
L-2
k- I

0 maw
Als
.wool-
E-�- ..

*�.. go 4ts. — --
w000z...-, .'IRK
44P

The following images, show City and
Residential piers/docks,
which occupy granted sovereign land,
but which are posted as if Private Property:

mrrwmq
AL
-,-: 'T:'
No Twf ss�m-tvm
r-q
L A
let
sow
INOW7 mum MEOW

I 1"ll
r
lam
IL

f7l
7t�
j I
�A

PO
oil
v
AM

A
lr9mmL.§
lie
7TOV%

I PFOVATE
i I

Lim -
AI
lit
Z 74MR
low

From:

Sally Peterson
To:

City Clerk"s Office
Subject:

Mooring Transfer Proposed Changes
Date:

July 07, 2024 6:13:16 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the -ontent is safe.

The proposed changes to the City Code regarding Mooring Transfers are shocking.

A "No" vote is encouraged.

Per the Harbor Department policies regarding mooring transfers, the City has supported such transfers by establishing policy regarding registering the transfers and collecting a fee for such transfers. They openly published sales prices, thus creating a "market value". Now, the City is proposing total changes to their policy which are to take effect August 22, 2024, a month + from consideration. These changes take away our rights:

1. The proposed change reduces the rights of a mooring holder. A permittee would no longer be able to transfer his permittee rights. The City will reduce those rights to a licensee status and remove further transfer rights. Ultimately, the City will take all rights from a mooring holder. Upon approval of this code change, the "market value" created by the City will be reduced to near nothing. The City will be responsible for ourlosses.

2. The proposed changes include preventing inheritance of a mooring. Many moorings have been in families for generations. Each generation develops their knowledge and love for boating having grown up with small boats stored on a shore mooring. Typically, the mooring is conveniently near the family's home, a convenience that translates into more boat use and better kept boats and moorings.

Preventing a mooring from being kept in a family that cares is a mistake.

ADVANTAGES OF KEEPING TRANSFERABILTY - I paid to get a mooring near my house because I found that I wasn't using my boat that was on another mooring I had many blocks away. Additionally, I didn't go by this other mooring often enough to keep the boat and mooring in good condition. It was worth paying for the convenience. By stopping transferability, you reduce the chances of a mooring holder getting a mooring in a convenient location, a location that enables the mooring holder to care for the mooring and boat. They will instead get whatever mooring the City has available. And the City's proposed system will not enable them to make a transfer to get a mooring in a more convenient location. This is a real negative for the Bay.

From: Leuna. Grac
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: FW: Another Discussion on the Proposed Offshore Mooring Increase Date: July 08, 2024 10:04:18 AM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-1.pnQ
From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: J u ly 07, 2024 4:59 P M
To: Leung, Grace
Subject: Another Discussion on the Proposed Offshore Mooring Increase [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 7, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Manager, Grace K Lueng
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and you the CIty Manager a letter stating my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.

I reviewed the agenda for the July 9, 2024 meeting and found several documents (A-K) under Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46and 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings.

It is clear to me that after reviewing all the documents, the intent of the City Council will be to pass this ordinance and resolution, no matter what public objections will be or have been expressed. There are several hundred e-mails and letters in Attachment J - Public Comments that oppose this measure, and seem to have little or no impact of the Harbor Commission or City Council.

There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 20 10 that has made the certain passage if the ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.

So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor Commission. So let's look at what your decision to pass the ordinance and resolution will mean to me.

Below is data that I extracted from Attachment B from the Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and 2024-

47. 1 put it in a spreadsheet to clearly understand the percentage of increase that you are imposing on me.

On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly permit fee (equal to $166.75 per month).

On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month).

On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month).

And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month).

On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month) and last on July 1, 2029 an increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month).

This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of

24.9% and more.

On July 1 of 2029 1 would be paying 3.6 times more monthly permit fees than in 2024.

So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029? And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on Balboa Yacht Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025 ONLY 4%? These are numbers from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.

Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa Yacht Basin rates that the CIty of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of interest?
I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath unit with a garage in North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I want to make money, cover my expense and keep a long-term tenant. What if I take the same percentages that the City of Newport is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The first year my tenant would pay $547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be $7,920 per month. AM I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU SAME INCREASE?
In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding Whitlinger; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer appraisal that should not be adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach,

methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas where the appraisal would benefit from clarification."
In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences." I do not see where the Harbor Commission or the staff addressed these concerns by the California Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities to the offshore moorings. Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair comparison and glossed over.

If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, which certainly looks like the will, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like me, that will lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.

This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the City Council to do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the offshore mooring permittees. I strongly encourage you to recommend the City Council to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the people they serve.

Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their constituents in a fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.

Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore�&,gmailsom

From:

Staoleton, Joe
To:

Brown, Leflani
Cc:

Hari), Aaron
Subject:

FW: Mooring discussion
Date:

July 08, 2024 11:41:20 AM
Joe Stapleton
Mayor Pro Tern
Office: (949) 644-3004
100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. ----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Clabaugh
Sent: Monday, July 8,2024 10:03 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Subject: Mooring discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Newport City Council:

I know the harbor. This mooring fee issue can destroy a valuable and unique quality of my home.

My grandparents bought their first home on the island in 1960. We still have it. I've lived in Newport since 1974, graduated CdM in 1977, sailed the harbor for 45 years, my business has been in Newport Beach since 1993, my kids graduated CdM, and our family is in its 5th generation here.

This mooring fee increase is among the worst ideas I've seen. If something is passed, in any form, without the concurrence of existing mooring permittees, it will change the nature of the harbor for the worse.

We don't need Sacramento style politics here. The best option here is to put aside the vote and work together.

Please do not vote to damage the harbor.

Matt Clabaugh
240 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, ca 92660
Sent from my iPhone

From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Date: July 08, 2024 11:42:03 AM
From: CHRIS BLISS
Sent: July 08, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Cc: Avery, Brad ; Weigand, Erik ;
Grant, Robyn ; Blom, Noah ;
Kleiman, Lauren ; O'Neill, William
Subject: Reverse mortgage on moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the ,ontent is safe.

E11111111
Christopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
To:

Newport Beach City Council Members
The press has been invited to witness this spectacle of capitalism at its finest.

A bunch of wealthy politicians, some of whom live in waterfront homes with docks, and pay little or no tideland fees at aU, are about to give all the mooring holders a choice:

Accept the city's plan to raise fees to the to a point that after a few years it will be so expensive that you will be forced out of the harbor. (Never mind that we get to use the same tidelands for FREE because we are rich and privileged, and really have no use for middle class boaters in our harbor).

ME
Accept our "reverse mortgage" plan, in which you can stay on your mooring longer at the same rate, but at the end, all equity that you may have in the mooring permit will be gone and the city will "Confiscate" the mooring and then rent it for a rate that will be unaffordable for most people. (Never mind that all the wealthy and privileged homeowners with docks also get to use the same tidelands for FREE and rent out their docks for PROFIT).

There is a third option:

Please postpone the vote on this matter, sit down face to face in a meaningful discussion, and let us present the NIVIA plan which will be a compromise that I'm sure we can all live with.

Thank you.

Christopher Bliss

From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Moring rate rip off
Date: July 08, 2024 11:43:53 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Legere
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:23 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Moring rate rip off
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Unfair increase in moring rate
Sent from my Whone

From:

Biddle, Jennife
To:

City Clerk"s Office
Subject:

FW: Moorings
Date:

July 08, 2024 11:44:13 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Sork
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:28 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
Is it true that under the city's proposal moorings could not be transferred after 2028? Thanks,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.

Balboa Island
949-500-ol48

From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Fair and Equitable ?
Date: 3uly 08, 2024 11:44:42 AM
From: Surf n Sail
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad ;
Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ; Blom,
Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren ; O'Neill,
William
Subject: Fair and Equitable ?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the -ontent is safe.
40-foot mooring currently paying $1,603 per year would soar to $5,770++ per year !!
Difficult to see how this is Fair or Equitable ??
How can this discrimination be justified ??
W
-A C

From:

Richard Holbroo
To:

Blom, Noah
Subject:
mooring rate increase
Date:

July 05, 2024 3:05:58 PM
Hi -
I want to state my objection to the City Council's plan to increase mooring rates.

As the permit holder for Mooring B- 12 1, 1 feel the proposed rates are unfair compared to rates paid for dock leases in the harbor.

Also, the process the City has used to determine the new rates seems unjust and inequitable.

Please reconsider this ill advised and egregious rate increase. best -
rmh
Richard Holbrook (design)
288 Chiquita Street
Laguna Beach CA 92651
(626) 676-9084
www.richardholbrook.com

From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 08, 2024 11:45:23 AM
From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: July 05, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: July 8, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 5, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council. Member, Noah BLom
We seem to be at a tipping point on the issue of raising the offshore mooring rates in Newport Harbor. The matter is on the agenda for Tuesday, JuLy 8, 2024 Council. meeting. I wiLL be at the meeting to carefuLLy Listen to the recommendations from the Harbor Commission and the City CounciL's consideration of the matter.

I have personally written several, letters to the Harbor Commission and you the City Council, of the unfairness to target and raise my mooring permit fee. I have been in the harbor for over twenty-five years and have been a good tenant.

It now appears that you want to raise the permit fee to $480 per month on my forty foot mooring. That is a 3.6 times more than I am currentLy paying.

This is a ridiculous increase!
Why remove the transferabiLity of the mooring permits? This is a revenue source to

the City and a f airway to rejuvenate the usage of the mooring permittees..

If you, the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, you will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, Like me, that will Lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.

Unless you can definitively explain the reasoning and justification for this increase to me, I strongly encourage you to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the people you serve.

Is your position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of your constituents? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.

Sincerely,
Te rry W. Tro m b ato re
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(@gmai1.com

From: Biddle, Jennife
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Mooring Fee Rate Hikes
Date: July 08, 2024 11:45:45 AM
From: Patrick Chandler
Sent: J u ly 05, 2024 3:5 6 P M
To: Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad ;
Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ;
Blom, Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren ;
O'Neill, William
Cc: Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Mooring Fee Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The proposed rate hikes are insane.

I hope the City is ready for a lawsuit.

Patrick Chandler

From:

Biddle, Jennife
To:

City Clerk"s Office
Subject:

FW: Mooring increase
Date:

July 08, 2024 11:46:00 AM
From: natalie fogarty
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:00 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the ,ontent is safe.

Ptease be fair to those who have moorings. A modest
adjustment wilL Let those who are not the very rich to
maintain moorings. How many owners in the area couLd
afford to buy in this area today?
NataLie Fogarty

From:

Biddle, Jennifer
Sent:

July 08, 2024 11:46 AM
To:

City Clerk's Office
Subject:

FW: moorings
Attachments:
shoremooring.clocx
From: Robert Payne
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad ;
Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ; Blom,
Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren ; O'Neill,
William
Subject: moorings
[EXTERNAL E
content is safe.

April 10, 2022
Dear Honorable City Council Members and Members of the Harbor Commission, My first letter to you on the subject of shore moorings was a description of many members of our community's, including my own, experience with a lifetime of small craft usage upon the waters of our fine harbor.

You have received many similar reports from residents from all walks of life on this subject: Kids growing up learning the rudimentary skills of sailing and seamanship, sharing priceless time on the water with parents and grandparents, experiencing all that the use and access to our coastal waterways has to offer.

The ability to maintain a given location in which to anchor a small vessel with a connection to the beach (a shore mooring) has been part of the bay's waterfront since it's inception as a recreational and residential harbor. I have never heard anyone complain about the amount a user was required to pay for his or her use of the public tidelands. Nor have I ever heard a complaint that users of moorings didn't reimburse the state enough for their share of their patch of eelgrass, stingrays and muck. The nominal rates charged for the use of the state tidelands have remained equitable while supply and demand have increased the "market" value of obtaining the right to participate in the system. In short, the system has been working just fine while undergoing various changes in the rules by which an individual may use the space. (The City, the County, now the City again) All this begs the question: why now? Why is suddenly this issue boiling over with controversy? What's next? Offshore moorings, private docks, marinas? Is it really necessary because we live in a place of high property values and expensive yachts that everything must be similarly made more expensive? This seems like a problem that did not need to be created.

My suggestion is that we all take a deep breath, back away and take a fresh look at the situation. It'5 a shore mooring; nothing more, nothing less. We do not need to obsess over the futile attempt to assess the intrinsic value of the spaces involved. People keep small boats on them because we have no public launch ramps and you are not supposed to haul them over the seawall each time you want to go for a sail. I urge you, who have the authority to do so, to leaving things alone.

Thank you for your attention.

Bob Payne
Balboa Island

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: mooring fees
From: Carol Rinderknecht
Sent: July 05, 2024 4:11 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: mooring fees
LEA I EKNAL r-I-IMILJ DO 190T CL1=1nKS or anachments unless you recognize the sender and know the L An
I hope you plan on voting AGAINST the mooring hike increase! It's unfair to price out the average user. If you're not priviLeged then you won't have a chance.

Ty
Carol, Rinderknecht

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW:

From: Annie Burton
Sent: July 05, 2024 5:41 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad ;
Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ; Blom,
Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren ; O'Neill,
William
Subject:
[EXTERNAL E
content is safe.

PLease vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increases
Thankyou.
949.466.0542
[email protected]

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:48 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: moorings
From: Tim Lewis
Sent: July 05, 2024 9:17 PM
To: Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ;
Blom, Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren
Subject: Fw: moorings
I C I: I I
OEM,
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Tim Lewis
To: 'stapletonC@newport eachca.gov �i�stapleton(ja�newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 at 09:13:13 PM PDT
Subject: moorings
Please consider this, is it wise for the city to be in the mooring business? The city will be in direct competition with the private marinas and the returns will not justify the risk. The city will poorly manage and end up with $IVI's of expense and a great loss to many undesignated local venders. While the Harbor Commision has proposed income, they have failed to create a "business plan" that includes "everything". Your role might be to question this proposal before committing the taxpayers of This City to Shurley a can of worms.

You should have been briefed on the poised lawsuit ($200K donated) and the complaint filed with the state lands commission. Going forward with this proposal seems to ignore the potential damages.

You have probably watched our neighbor city of Huntington Beach getting their feathers trimmed by the State. The bottom line will be from the State lands Commision and at this time they are "looking at the problem'.

It is easy to "Ask for more information", vote to do more research and vote yes when "all the ducks are in a row". This is not that time!
Thank you for all you do
Former resident, former vender, current BYC member, current mooring permit owner and someone that values Newport Beach as a place to share with a lot of nice people.

Tim Lewis

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring rate increase
-----Original Message -----
From: scott allen
Sent: July 05, 2024 7:59 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Noah,
I encourage you to vote no on the proposed mooring rate increase at the July 9 council meeting. The rate increases does not include dock owners nor the various yacht clubs. And there are significant disagreements on the method used in creating the new rates.

Please vote no.

Thankyou
Scott Allen
204 Amethyst Ave
Balboa Island
7144699647

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
-----Original Message -----
From: Mark Sork
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:07 AM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
To put it in the simplest of terms ... THE PROPOSED MOORING FEE INCREASES OR CANCELLATION OF THE PERMITS IS UNREASONABLE AND UNFAIR!
The harbor should continue as a place of recreation ... not a politically motivated money grab! Mark Sork

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: J u ly 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring fee rates
From: M Thompson
Sent: July 06, 2024 8:56 AM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Mooring fee rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Blom
I have watched you in meetings and read your emails and I wonder, what's in it for you? You aren't young, you probably don't boat a lot. Have you ever even put a boat on a mooring? Of course not. So why do you even care about spoiling it for everyone else? What is your end goal? Please share.

No one lives forever and as we enter the fourth quarter of our lives we often want to leave a legacy behind. Sometimes we want to get revenge for unknown reasons. Kind of feels like this is your deal. It's obvious you are behind this Netzer appraisal business.

If it goes to court there is so much evidence that you twisted facts under illegal means.

I would think you would like to end up as a reasonable, respected individual. No one wants to be remembered for ruining the bay for the future people to use. That is what you will do if this plan of yours, whatever the end game is, goes through. You won't be around to spend the money for long. Why are you doing this? I wouldn't want that legacy. Who are you trying to impress? I am sincere in wondering if you don't need to think about this, about your business practices. You may be powerful but you may not be liked. You really want people to have all of that negative energy directed towards you in their thoughts about what you are doing here?
Your life is yours to lead, as we boaters say, we go with the wind. Maybe you should turn into the wind and see what the future holds for people who go about ruining other peoples' lives. You have money and power. Is this fun for you? I can't imagine this and I wonder about your mind. Please be kind to people who haven't clawed their way to the top like you have, any way you could. It's not a good look for an old man.

Sincerely,
Meridee Thompson

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring rate increase
From: Jessie Fleming
Sent: July 06, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Mooring rate increase
LEA I hKITAL r-I-IMILJ UU NU I ULIGR tin KS or a Rach me nts un less you recognize the sender and know the Hello and thank you for receiving my emaiL. My name is Jessie Reming and I Live Aboard My Boat on a Mooring in tideLand Waters off Newport Beach. As you have recently heard Newport Beach city plans to raise the rate of TideLand water only permits for offshore Moorings. As a Mooring hoLder we pay for our space in the water towards TideLand water only permits. In Newport Beach we already pay more than any other tideland permit in the state! Now, Newport Beach proposes to give us a rate increase of over 400%. We have all purchased our own ground tackle and maintain it reguLarLy. We have no city amenities and we have no access to parking and limited space to a pubLic dock, in order to go ashore. Our tideland water only permit is not only more expensive than any other permit in the state, but it is much much more expensive than other tideland permits in Newport Beach. We pay more than yacht cLub mooring permits, commercial, dock, permits, and privately owned dock permits. All permits in Newport Beach are not equal. and when we ask why this is so? And how can this be? The city said... (I quote) "The city may change different rates for different uses when it is supported by an appraisal that makes distinctions in value". Well, if this is so... Anyone can tell you that offshore Moorings are far Less vaLuable than any commercial, or privately owned Dock. The city toLd us we are charging you more because we can and we know we can get these rates in Newport Beach. I feLt like a child being told "Because I said so"! The point is we live on tideLand state Waters not Newport Beach waters. Many of us Live Aboard with set incomes through Social Security or disability checks. We have planned our retirement days here. We have purchased our ground tackle, applied for liveaboard permits, follow all the rules, and pay our fees. Now we are told that our tideLand water only permit rate wil.l. increase over 400% and this rate will not be in many of our budgets. What this means is that the lower middLe-cLass income famiLies can no Longer enjoy the State Land Tideland waters that are here for ALL to enjoy. We will all be forced out of Newport Beach. I ask you to pLease consider our request to hoLd Newport Beach accountabLe to manage these water permits to be equal and fair rates for aLL permit

holders and not discriminatory. As Live aboards and retires I have never seen such stress among my neighbors in 40 yrs. This absurd rate increase has caused such anxiety for so many who have passed down generations of boating. Most will be forced out and no longer able to continue to have access for boating in the family. Please help us to hold the city accountable to stay within state Land permit equality recommendations. If you vote this through and the rate increase passes it will be a very sad day for all. Please help us and consider our request. Thank you.

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathlyn Lujan
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:28 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increases. Instead, work with community leaders to find a more equitable solution.

Sent from my Whone

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork
Sent: July 07, 2024 7:38 AM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Fwd: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMr1L] DO NOT ELICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Sork
Date: JuLy 5, 2024 at 2:28:02 PM PDT
To: nbLom(a)newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moorings
H i,
Is it true that under the city's proposal, moorings could not be transferred after 2028?
Thanks,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.

Balboa Island
949-500-ol48

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Mooring Fee Increase
From: [email protected]
Sent: July 07, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Blom, Noah
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the content is safe.

I know this is a little long but please take the time to read it.

Please keep me anonymous to the Harbor Department. I'm fearful of retaliation for what I'm sending you.

Please do not allow these outrageous, unfair and unwarranted Mooring Fee Increases of over 400%.

I have been a Mooring Permit (MP) holder in good standing for over 40 years. My family and I have long appreciated the ability to enjoy boating made possible by reasonable MP rates. I have dragged my 8 foot dinghy across the sand all these years knowing that was normal for the ability to access a mooring. I'm now in my 70s so it's harder every year but I still do it so our family can enjoy boating.

My wife and I are retired and absolutely cannot afford these unreasonable rate increases. We'd be forced to sell our boat and I'm sure many other MP holders will be too. Selling in a market where there will be many, many boats for sale will be a long process, if even possible, with the new rates and non -transferability for the buyers. We had hoped to keep the boat and MP in the family forever. My dad and I built most of the boat and she's a beautiful boat.

The Harbor Commissions appraiser states that rates are being increased in a San Diego mooring field but that turns out to be untrue!
When comparing Tidelands use for docks we pay much more per square foot or linear foot than houses with docks. I believe their docks can be rented creating a financial gain. I've seen them advertised through the years. Your appraiser states there is a market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it's illegal and puts the Permit holders at risk of losing their MP. The vast, vast majority of us abide by this rule. Don't punish us for the few that don't. Of course comparing Marinas to moorings is absurd. They have many amenities that moorings don't and operate for p rofi t.

Transfer -ability
Transfer -ability is critical when you need to sell a boat on a mooring. The rule has always been that the MP was transferable as long as you sold a qualifying boat moored on it. The city has allowed this rule to be bent or even bypassed for many, many years now. This created a market for mooring sales that should not have been allowed. Please don't punish those of us who have always followed the rules. Someday we will have to sell our boats and removing transfer -ability and charging these outrageous rates will make it almost impossible.

Building an Unnecessary Bureaucracy
The reason I want to remain anonymous to the Harbor Department is for fear of reprisal because of what I'm about to state. I know that the Harbor Department is a very small part of the City Budget and may not get much attention. However they are building a very large and unnecessary Bureaucracy. In FY 24 their Total Operating Budget cost the city $2,445,960. Their Salaries and Benefits alone were $1,521,414. They have gone from 3 Full Time Employees and 9.39 Part Time in FY 23 to 9 Full Time and 4.29 Part Time in FY 24. Their FY 25 proposed budget is $2,817,875. This will be a 59% increase since FY 22. Like I said I've been around here a long time and although I don't know the exact cost from when the Sheriff's Department ran the moorings for the city but I'm certain it wasn't and still wouldn't cost anywhere near this amount. A number that has been brought up was $300,000. There has been little improvement since the Harbor Department took over vs. when the Sheriffs managed the harbor. The Harbor Department was doing a fine job when their budget was at 1.77 million in FY 23. Is it really worth spending this exorbitant amount of our Tax Payer Money when they were more than adequate before?
Doing the Right Thing
This would be like telling someone renting an apartment from you that you're increasing their rent by 4 to 5 times. Obviously they would have no option but to leave in almost every case. Be reasonable basing rates on the CPI is fair. I learned we were using the

CPI or 2% whichever is lower. It should have been based on the CPI only. Going back to 2016 when this rate formula was adopted and using just the CPI not the 2% to create new more fair rates would be the right thing to do.

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:53 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo
Sent: July 07, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Avery, Brad
Subject: Outrageous mooring rate increases
nts unless you recognize the sender and know the
I am a home owner on Balboa Island and have the privilege of an onshore mooring that has been in my family since 1958. We have kept the mooring maintained faithfully and I pay my property taxes promptly.

I urge you to vote no on the proposed grossly unfairly large rate increases and to work with the community to develop a fair solution.

Respectfully,
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomplft mail.com
c: (415) 509-8304

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:54 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Proposed Mooring Fee Increases
From: [email protected]
Sent: July 07, 2024 7:51 AM
To: Avery, Brad
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increases
NOT CLICK Lin
Dear Councilman Avery,
This is just a short note to first say hello (we sailed together on Hawaii on Alaska Eagle many years ago — a fantastic experience!) and to urge you to not vote for the proposed fee increases for mooring permits in Newport Beach. While everyone does understand the need to fund the harbor, the current proposals are unfair as they single out mooring permittees, don't include all moorings, and do not address other tideland users like dock owners. Surely its is clear that mooring permittees are already encumbered as harbor users, without easy access and lack of power or water, unlike other tideland users not addressed in the fee increase proposals.

As a fellow yachtsman, and someone who has my admiration as a leader, please consider withholding your support of these proposals and instead seeking solutions that are more equitable to all harbor users. I would be happy to volunteer my time to help in that effort.

Best regards,
Craig Tillman
(949) 395-7444

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:55 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Moorings
-----Original Message -----
From: Kathlyn Lujan
Sent: July 06, 2024 6:25 PM
To: Avery, Brad
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote NO on the proposed mooring fee increase. Instead, work with community leaders to find a more equitable solution.

Sent from my Whone

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:55 AM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Morning increases
From: Dick Andrews
Sent: July 08, 2024 11:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Morning increases
[EXTERNAL EMW DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unLess you recognize the sender a Dear city council members I wil.l. be unabLe to come to the meeting tomorrow do that I am out of town I'm emaiLing to let you know that I wiLL be out of the home due to your proposed increases I'm a disabled vet on disabiLity and Social. Security your proposed increases will cause me to lose my home please do not vote Yes on the increases Thank you for your time and attention Dick Andrews morning J 210

From: Suzy McLaughlin
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes to transferability.

We owned a shore mooring for over 40 years and were grateful to have it. It afforded our family years and years of sailing and shared experiences. We were not a wealthy family (certainly not by today's Newport Beach standards) and sailing was an activity we could afford with simple boats and affordable mooring fees.

Please don't deprive other families of this rare and important experience in today's world. Newport has already become untouchable for most people; please don't make boating even more elite and unattainable.

Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.

From: Suzy McLaughlin
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; City Clerk's Office

Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024. [EXTERNAL E
content is safe.

Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes to transferability.

Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin

From: Matt Schenone
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAT" -,%,F\ links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is s
I am writing to express concern with the proposed mooring changes and the threat to affordable boating opportunities in Newport Harbor.

The current proposed mooring rate increases use marina slips for comparison. Mooring rates should be a fraction of slip rates, as they are significantly inferior to slips. Other than the right to berth a boat in the water, there is no comparison between a mooring and marina. Mooring permittees receive no amenities in return for their payments:
permittees pay for and maintain their own tackle, have no fresh water or electricity, have no convenient access to their mooring. Why are marina slip rates relevant, and why would future mooring rate increases be tied to increases in slip rates at a marina? Why are increased mooring rates under consideration when mooring permit holders already pay much higher rates than other tideland permittees? Private docks use significantly more tideland than a mooring. Why this crusade against mooring permittees and not other tideland users?
Thank you for your consideration.

Matt Schenone

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Suzy McLaughlin
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; City Clerk's Office

Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe content is sqfp. —
Dear City Council -
I'm writing to plead with you to reconsider the proposed mooring increases and changes to transferability.

Thank you,
Suzy McLaughlin

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:14 PM
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
From: Matt Schenone
Sent: July 08, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the �fe.

I am writing to express concern with the proposed mooring changes and the threat to affordable boating opportunities in Newport Harbor.

Matt Schenone

From: Weigand, Ed
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: Fwd: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion Date: July 08, 2024 12:15:47 PM
At the request of Aaron, I am forwarding you emails that are addressed just to me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Erik
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Terry Trombatore
Date: July 8, 2024 at 12:06:03 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik"
Subject: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 8, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council Member, Erik Weigand
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and the CIty Manager a letter stating my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.

There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 20 10 that has made the certain passage of the ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.

So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor

Commission. So let's look at what your decision to pass this ordinance and resolution will mean to me.

Below is data that I extracted from Attachment B from the Resolution Nos. 2024-46 and 2024-47. The chart is presented to fully understand the percentage of increase that you are imposing on me, as well as the slip rent increase for Balboa Yacht Basin for the same 40 foot slip analysis comparison.

Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Increase
Year Current Mooring New Mooring Percentage Balboa Percentage Rate per L/F Proposed Increase Yacht Basin Increase for Rate per L/F Under New 40ft Slip Fee Balboa Yacht
Rates per L/F Basin 40ft Slip Fee
2024$3.33 $1.25
1/12025 $4.16 24.9% $1.30 4.0%
7/l/2025 $5.04 21.2%
l/l/2026 $6.78 34.5%
l/l/2027 $8.53 25.8%
l/l/2028 $10.28 20.5%
l/l/2029 $12.02 16.9%
I currently pay $3.33 per L/F, equal to $133.20 per month or $1598.40 per year to the CIty of Newport.

On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly permit fee (equal to $166.75 per month; $2001 per year).

On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month; $2419.20 per year).

On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month; $3254.40 per year).

And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month; $4094.40 per year).

On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month; $4934.40 per year) and last on July 1, 2029 an increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month; $5769.60 per year).

This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of

24.9% and more.

In 2025 alone, I am hit with an increase in my monthly mooring permit of 46.1%. Is this at all a reasonable fair market rate which you have the duty to fulfill? On July 1 of 2029 1 would be paying 3.6 times more monthly permit fees than in 2024.

So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029? What is the logic?
And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on Balboa Yacht Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025

ONLY 4%? These are numbers from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.

Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa Yacht Basin rates that the City of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of interest and a loaded rigged false rate?
Let's do a comparison. I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath unit with a garage in North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I want to make money, cover my expense, keep a long-term tenant and be a FAIR landlord and not abusive. What if I take the same percentages that the City of Newport is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The first year my tenant would pay $547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be $7,920 per month. AM I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU SAME INCREASE? In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding Whitlinger of the City Newport; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer appraisal that should not be adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach, methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas where the appraisal would benefit from clarification." In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences."
I do not see where the Harbor Commission nor the staff addressed these concerns by the California Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities to the offshore moorings. Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair comparison and are glossed over.

If the Council moves to adopt this unfair increase on the mooring permittees, which certainly looks like they will, they will be forever remembered as the Newport Beach City Council that destroyed the affordability and accessibility to the harbor for hundreds of boat owners, like me, that will lose the right to own and operate a vessel in the state of California's tidelands, under the good faith stewardship of the City of Newport Beach.

This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the City Council to do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the offshore mooring permittees rather than set a fair market rate. I strongly encourage you to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the people your serve.

Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their constituents in a fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.

Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
tegy.trombatore&gmail.com

From:

Weigand, Ed
To:

Brown, Leilani
Subject:

Fwd: Vote no offshore morning fee increases
Date:

July 08, 2024 12:36:55 PM
Here's another one.

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: kartbin
Date: July 8, 2024 at 12:17:16 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik"
Subject: Vote no offshore morning fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sende t e content is afe.

Hello Erik,
We respectfully request your vote against offshore morning fee increases at tomorrow's city council meeting.

There is NO basis for fee increases when no services are provided: Mooring permittees must service their own moorings, there is no parking, amenities, nor dinghy storage.

A vote for fee increases will show favoritism toward Harbor Commission members rather than your loyal constituents.

Please be reasonable, just, and fair and vote for no fee increases.

If anything, fees should decrease.

Appreciatively,
The Baker Family
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

From: Stapleton, Jo
To: Brown. Leilani
Subject: FW: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
Date: July 08, 2024 1:55:13 PM
Attachments: image001.ong
Joe Stapleton
Mayor Pro Tern
Office: (949) 644-3004
87 100 Civic Center Dr
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.

From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 12:14 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Subject: Re: July 9, 2024 Mooring Permittee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

July 8, 2024
Dear Newport Beach City Council Member, Joe Stapleton
On July 5, 2024 1 wrote each Newport Beach City Council member and the CIty Manager a letter stating my concerns about the proposed increase to the offshore mooring permit fee.

There is such a trail of bureaucracy dating well back to 2010 that has made the certain passage of the ordinance and resolution on July 9, 2024.

So it looks to me that I am up against six Council members, one City Manager and the Harbor Commission.

So let's look at what your decision to pass this ordinance and resolution will mean to me.

Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Increase
Year Current Mooring New Mooring
Percentage
Rate per L/F
Proposed
Yacht Basin
Increase for
Rate per L/F
Balboa Yacht
Increase
Under New
Rates per L/F
Basin 40ft Slip Fee
2024
$3.33
$1.25
1/12025
$4.16

24.9%
$1.30 4.0%
7/l/2025
$5.04

21.2%
l/l/2026
$6.78

34.5%
l/l/2027
$8.53

25.8%
l/l/2028
$10.28

20.5%
l/l/2029
$12.02

16.9%
Percentage Balboa
40ft Slip Fee
I currently pay $3.33 per L/F, equal to $133.20 per month or $1598.40 per year to the CIty of Newport.

On January 1, 2025 1 get a 24.9% increase over what I am currently paying for my monthly permit fee (equal to $166.75 per month; $2001 per year).

On July 1, 2025 1 receive another increase of 21.2% (equal to $201.60 per month; $2419.20 per year).

On July 1, 2026 1 receive another annual increase of 34.5% (equal to $271.20 per month; $3254.40 per year).

And on July 1, 2027 another annual increase of 25.8% (equal to $341.20 per month; $4094.40 per year).

On July 1, 2028 an increase of 20.5% (equal to $411.20 per month; $4934.40 per year) and last on July 1, 2029 an increase of 16.9% (equal to $480.80 per month; $5769.60 per year).

This a ridiculous increase, when you are going from a 2% COL to a starting increase of 24.9% and

more.

So why are their different annual percentage increases from 2025 to 2029? What is the logic? And if the offshore moorings are 24% of the Newport Harbor Marine Index, based on Balboa Yacht Basin, why is the percent increase for a 40 foot slip from 2024 to 2025 ONLY 4%? These are numbers from the Newport Harbor Patrol website.

Also how can you set a percentage index for the offshore mooring fees based on Balboa Yacht Basin rates that the CIty of Newport sets and regulates. Is this not a conflict of interest and a loaded rigged false rate?
Let's do a comparison. I am a responsible landlord and have a two bedroom, one bath unit with a garage in North Laguna. I try and keep a fair market rental rate because I want to make money, cover my expense, keep a long-term tenant and be a FAIR landlord and not abusive. What if I take the same percentages that the City of Newport is applying to my offshore mooring to my rental. The first year my tenant would pay $547.80 more per month and after four years their rent would be $7,920 per month. AM I BEING A RESPONSIBLE LANDLORD IF I APPLY YOU SAME INCREASE?
In Attachment I which is the letter from California Lands Commission to Lauren Wooding Whitlinger of the City Newport; Reid Boggiano states on page two the flaws in the Netzer appraisal that should not be adhered to: "After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach, methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas where the appraisal would benefit from clarification."
In the letter it is stated: "Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the moorings and marinas use in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences." I do not see where the Harbor Commission nor the staff addressed these concerns by the California Lands Commission to compare the Newport Harbor slip fees and amenities to the offshore moorings.

Yet the proposed increase is tied specifically to this unfair comparison and are glossed over.

This seems to me to be a forced decision on the part of the Harbor Commission and now the City Council to do whatever it takes to unfairly impose this ridiculous increase on the offshore mooring permittees rather than set a fair market rate. I strongly encourage you to NOT vote to increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure for the people your serve.

Is City Council's position power over the people or to serve the vested interest of their constituents in a fiduciary way? I urge you to please do what is fair and right.

Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
teuZ�.trornbatore&gmailxom

From: Jon Kosoff
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
As a Mooring owner I am ashamed and appalled what the Newport Harbor Commission is trying to do. This isn't fair or just in anyway, and is flat out completely wrong. It is discrimination, and we appreciate you reviewing the facts of this case.

Currently, the mooring holders pay 4 times more than the affluent waterfront homeowners for use of the same submerged tidelands. If the proposed rate increase goes through, the mooring holders will be paying up to Multiple times more than the affluent waterfront homeowners pay, for use of the exact same tidelands. That's not fair and it clearly targets and discriminates against people with moorings.

Few more thoughts:
• The Harbor Commission's rate recommendation fails to properly account for the fact that mooring permit holders pay for their own mooring tackle and maintenance. The City does not provide the mooring amenity, yet the Harbor Commission has recommended a dramatic fee increase.
• Moorings are difficult to access and have no electricity. Therefore, mooring permit rates have historically been a tiny fraction of slip rates given the difficult access and lack of amenities.
• When updating mooring rates, past practice has been to establish a fair rate and then peg that rate to CPl for the next 5 years. This gives some certainty to future rates. This proposal to peg rates to BYB slip rates, giving no certainty to future rates, is unfair.
• Mooring Permit holders already may much higher rates than other tideland permit rates. We already pay more than our fair share into the City Tideland Fund. This significant fee increase is simply not fair or equitable. • On July 5th the city has posted, for the first time, an alternate recommendation involving converting private moorings into city owned moorings. This is a complex recommendation that we are now seeing for the first time without time for a proper analysis. The mooring permit holders deserve more time to review and analyze this alternate staff recommendation.

This is how the proposed rate increase will have an impact on me and my family:

As Newport Beach Residents, we recently bought our mooring and saved a long time do to so. We plan on sharing it with our 3 children for a long time. It took us 3 years to find the mooring and we had to pay a Significant amount of money up front to buy the mooring. We did it the right way. And don't think it is fair for this proposed increase which will crash the value of our investment. More importantly our ability to use the beautiful harbor with our family and friends.

It is completely wrong and fraudulent. I understand a small cost of living increase and have no problem paying it but this would essentially make our investment disappear. It is a complete money grab and discrimination. We have no services on our mooring and pay for all the maintenance and work done. The appraisal methodology is 100% flawed, and not fair.

I ask the City Council to please stop this madness. Discrimination can't be tolerated.

We appreciate the City Council to end this discuss asap and protect residents of Newport Beach against this discrimination and flawed appraisal.

Thank you,
Jon Kosoff
949.309.9969

From: Biddle, Jennifer
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:27 PIVI
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: Private use of Public Tidelands and Boats that pay no fee at all! From: George Hylkema
Sent: July 08, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; City Clerk's Office

Cc: Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad ;
Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn ; Blom,
Noah ; [email protected]; O'Neill, William

Subject: Private use of Public Tidelands and Boats that pay no fee at all! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the content is safe.

Dear Council Member
In a brief cornment* given at both of the last two City Council meetings, I posed the following question to this Council,
*Do some of the boats in Newport Harbor pay no tideland fees at all?
Because the Council does not provide responses to questions raised during one's "public comment", I will, again, ask each of the Council members a few questions and make a necessary statement.

First. Do you agree that ALL boats in Newport Harbor, when not in use, use the Public Tidelands in exactly the same way?
Second. Do you agree that ALL boats in Newport Harbor should pay for this private use of Public Tidelands?
Third. Are you aware that many boats on private docks pay no tideland fees at all?
Fourth. If so, do you agree that the administrative structure that permits i� gifts of Public Tidelands" should be revised to correct this error?

Fifth. Do you concur that the requirement in the administration of the tidelands, as stated below", is relevant to the stated issue here of boats that pay NO tideland fee at all as well as discrimination against Mooring Permit Holders?
Sixth. As a Mooring Permit Holder, a 50-year resident of Newport Beach and a person who strives to be fair in my own dealings, I request that this Council postpone any vote on Mooring fees that have been presented by the Harbor Commission in the Tuesday Agenda, and take the time necessary for careful consideration of the many conflicting issues that are present. There is much background that the current City Council members may be unaware of. Much of this important background can be found in a careful reading of the letter to the Mayor and Council members submitted today Newport Beach City Council Meeting 7/9/2024 Public Comment Re:

Agenda Item #13 & What is Fair Market Rent by Adam Leverenz **(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shag make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith.

Thanks for your consideration of these observations.

George Hylkema
Script for 2 minute talk given as comment to last two City Council Meetings
*Do some of the boats in Newport Harbor pay no tideland fee at all? Every boat in Newport Harbor uses the public tidelands in exactly the same way. On a sunny day every boat casts a shadow on the bottom of the bay which outlines its shadow bottom print and its approximate claim on the tidelands. Whether it is secured to some cleats on a dock or secured to lines attached to floating buoys and the buoy in turn secured by chains to iron weights on the bottom of the bay there is no difference in its claim for private use of public tidelands. Every boat then should be paying for the private use of the public tideland space.

In this familiar slide from NMA below, boats are illustrated at a private dock compared to a boat on an offshore mooring. The text on the slide notes that for the same number of square feet of dock surface compared to the same number of square feet determined to be the footprint of a boat on a 40 foot mooring the dock owner pays $30 per month while the mooring permit holder will pay $480 per month as a tideland fee. This is actually a dock to boat comparison.

If you look again at the drawing you see that there are two boats, one on each side of the fee paying wooden dock. These two boats actually pay no tideland fee at all.

Given the non discrimination requirement of the code* under which the City of Newport Beach is granted administration of the public tidelands the idea that some boat owners pay no fee at all for private use of the public tidelands is obviously not in compliance with the rules. (Show NMA slide with dock and two boats compared with mooring) *Beacon Bay Bill: Granting Statute for the City of Newport Beach Tidelands Chapter 74 of the Beacon Bay Bill STATUTES OF 1978 page 199 (d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith.

From:

Gary George
Sent:

July 08, 2024 2:24 PM
To:

Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; O'Neill, William Cc:

Danita George; [email protected]; Stewards of the Harbor; Chris Benzen
Subject:
"Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dulfururrurrmn—orattach me nts un less you recognize the send era nd know the cont
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Gary George, I have a 48'CPMY on mooring A-1 23, it has been a life Long endeavor to have this type of boat and enjoy the boating life styLe. At age 70, I'm looking at all of this being taken away due to possible rate increases for reasons beyond my understanding. Now I hear that there is a pLan to discontinue mooring transferabiLity, a practice that has long been condoned, managed, enforced and recorded by the city, incLuding the price paid for rights to transfer said Lease, Is the city going to reimburse all mooring lease hoLders the current fair market rate in order to change this reLationship? As has been stated by so many others, having a boat on an off shore mooring is no easy way of keeping a boat, if fact it is quite difficult to get to and from the moored boat, get work done outside of having it pulled from the water, etc.

If any of these new rates or ptans take effect, is the city going to provide shore boats, large working docks, personal hygiene & laundry faciLities, in an quantity capable of serving "ALL" of the moorings?
When considering the proposed plans in front of you, I ask that you sincereLy be fair minded to aLL parties involved, please do not vote to impLement any of the current proposed plans. Let us come to a fair resolution to to the issue at hand.

Thank For Your Consideration
GaryGeo rdam I President
I b,%�
www.georgegenera1.com
C)OC, 0: 951-353-81811 C: 951-204-2538 1 F. 951-353-8184 gavgeorgegenerall.corn

From: Weigand, Eri
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: Fwd: Mooring Rates & Transferability
Date: July 08, 2024 2:47:51 PM
Here's another one.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Andy SWANSON
Date: July 8, 2024 at 2:42:36 PM PDT
To: "Weigand, Erik"
Subject: Mooring Rates & Transferability
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the I safe.

Dear Council Member,
This email is regarding the Newport Beach mooring permit fee appraisal and proposed rate increase. My name is Andy Swanson and I became a mooring permittee a little over 2 years ago. Growing up in Southern California I spent a lot of time in Newport Beach. It has always been my dream to one day have my own sailboat and keep it in Newport Harbor. After working hard, raising our four daughters and climbing the career ladder, my wife and I felt we were finally in a position to make our dreams a reality. Like you, I am a government employee with a middle class salary. After becoming empty nesters, I began researching how to become a mooring permit holder. At that time I contacted the Newport Harbor Department and was told that the only way is to purchase and transfer a permit from an existing permit holder. I was also told that the average purchase price was around $ 1000 per foot and that the permit would continue to be transferable after having it for at least 12 months. So we decided to refinance our home to purchase our sailboat and a mooring permit. We put a lot of thought and planning into making this decision. We felt comfortable with the cost of an annual parking permit, biannual mooring tackle maintenance / inspection and the monthly mooring fee. As well as the regular boat maintenance cost and dinghy storage. We also understand that costs go up over time. All that being said, we feel that the Newport Beach Harbor Commission should be fair in the way they charge for the use of the tidelands. If the monthly rate of our mooring were to be raised by such a drastic amount it would create a hardship for us. Potentially crushing our dreams of spending time with and teaching our children and grandchildren the joys of sailing. This will not just effect us but also future generations of boaters. I recently received an email from the harbor department that ended with this quote. "Thanks for your contributions to maintaining Newport Harbor as a clean, safe and enjoyable public resource for the entire

communi1y to �o ". I feel that by raising mooring permit fees to the level that they are unaffordable for the average person would contradict this quote by making Newport Harbor only enjoyable by the wealthy and not the entire community. If my wife and I would have known we could possibly be paying over 4.5 times what the current mooring rates are and would potentially lose the $40,000 spent purchasing the mooring permit we would have made a different decision. In a State that is becoming more and more unaffordable, I would ask that you not do the same with the State Tidelands. Thank you! Best regards,
The Swanson Family

From: Harr), Aaron
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Date: July 08, 2024 3:25:56 PM
From: Avery, Brad
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Harp, Aaron
Subject: FW: Reverse mortgage on moorings
From: CHRIS BLISS
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Cc: Avery, Brad ; Weigand, Erik ;
Grant, Robyn ; Blom, Noah ;
Kleiman, Lauren ; O'Neill, William
Subject: Reverse mortgage on moorings
Christopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
To:

Newport Beach City Council Members
The press has been invited to witness this spectacle of capitalism at its finest.

A bunch of wealthy politicians, some of whom live in waterfront homes with docks, and pay little or no tideland fees at all, are about to give all the mooring holders a choice:

MM
Accept our "reverse mortgage" plan, in which you can stay on your mooring longer at the same rate, but at the end, all equity that you may have in the mooring permit will be gone and the city will "Confiscate" the mooring and then rent it for a rate that will be unaffordable for most people. (Never mind that all the wealthy and privileged homeowners with docks also get to use the same tidelands for FREE and rent out their docks for PROFIT).

There is a third option:

Please postpone the vote on this matter, sit down face to face in a meaningful discussion, and let us present the NIVIA plan which will be a compromise that I'm sure we can all live with.

Thank you.

Christopher Bliss

From:

Fred Fourcher
To:

Der)t - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Cc:

Adriana Fourcher
Subject:

Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.

Date:

July 08, 2024 3:33:22 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments nnles-'�ecocyni7p th,- c,-ncif-r nnd L-nniv thi- content is s�
Honorable City Council Members,
I have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1977 and have had my mooring off Balboa Island since 1976. 1 am an avid sailor and have a great appreciation for amazing Harbor.

The proposed rate increase along with the City takeover of the Moorings without a sound basis. This rate increase is putting the people of Newport Beach at odds with our elected officials. When the people need to raise a legal fund to defend themselves from the City then something is terribly wrong.

If you are not aware of all the flaws in the proposed rate increase, I am sure you will become aware soon and if the rate increase passes, myself along with many others will be putting our efforts behind a legal remedy.

Our elected officials should be working for the people and not against the people who are part of our unique community. A fair and equitable rate increase is normal. The proposed rate increase and the takeover of the moorings by the City is completely unfair and uncalled for.

Taking the recommendations from the Staff and the Harbor Commission with an agenda, based on a flawed appraisal, instead of investigating the motivation behind the flawed appraisal and resulting recommendation, is simply poor governance.

Fred & Adriana Fourcher
Cell 714 914 1000

From: Pengalo
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Cc: mail@ newportmooringassociation.org
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
Attachments: 8 July 2024 council meeting.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and knowthe content is safe.
8 July 2024
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I regret that I am unable to attend the Tuesday 7/9/24 meeting in person.

I am writing regarding agenda item #13, Mooring Rates, asking that you NOT adopt the Harbor Commission recommendations or proposed options, or take any action on these items at this time.

Instead, as a third -generation property owner on Balboa Island and current shore - mooring permittee, I ask that you work with the Newport Mooring Association and other mooring permittees to address the shortcomings in the base Netzger Appraisal and other shortcomings, inconsistencies, and illogic of the current recommendations.

While the city has a responsibility to determine a fair market rate, there are too many red -flags around the equity and structure of current proposed rates, their underlying appraisal methodology and assumptions, and the process by which they were developed to proceed further with them. While much information has been provided to the Harbor Commission at many meetings leading up to this point, the Commission has not been receptive to the community input nor meaningfully responsive to the many concerns and issues raised.

That being the case, please receive the information, then defer further action as our elected leaders until you have a full hearing of the concerns and evidence from the Newport Mooring Association and other interested parties and an opportunity to collaborate further on modification of the current proposal to create a more fair and appropriate appraisal, rate, and permit structure.

Thank You!

Peter Leinau, owner
324 Amethyst
Permitee, N145

8 July 2024
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I regret that I am unable to attend the Tuesday 7/9/24 meeting in person.

I am writing regarding agenda item #13, Mooring Rates, asking that you NOT adopt the Harbor Commission recommendations or proposed options, or take any action on these items at this time.

While the city has a responsibility to determine a fair market rate there are too many red -flags around the equity and structure of the current proposed rates, their underlying appraisal methodology and assumptions, and the process by which they were developed to proceed further with them. While much information has been provided to the Harbor Commission at many meetings leading up to this point, the Commission has not been receptive to the community input nor meaningfully responsive to the many concerns and issues raised.

That being the case, please receive the information, then defer further action as our elected leaders until you have a full hearing of the concerns and evidence from the Newport Mooring Association and other interested parties and an opportunity to collaborate further on a more fair and appropriate appraisal, rate, and permit structure.

Thank You!
Peter Leinau, owner
324 Amethyst
Permitee, N145

From: L. Scott Karlin
To: Dent - City Council
Cc: City Clerk"s Office; Stapleton, Joe; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Eri ; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; ikleiman(cbnewr)ortbeachca.ciov; 0"Neill, William
Subject: Written Comment on agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9th 2024 Date: July 08, 2024 4:01:45 PM
Attachments: image.prig
Report on Transferability 7-07-2024 JLK - LSK.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or 2tfiqchment, nnit-.— vnn rgonan;-- +--g-g-A I -- content is safe. 0
What follows is also in the attachment.

Newport Harbor Moorings
Transferability, Affordability, and Responsibility
This report addresses current and past policies on the transfer of mooring permits in Newport Harbor. The report was originally presented to the City Council in 2015 and was updated on July 8, 2024. The report first looks at the history of the moorings, and then addresses how to best honor this history while at the same time increasing accessibility and affordability of moorings. The report also addresses how to encourage responsible use of the moorings and the boats on the moorings. The report concludes that the goals of Affordability and Responsibility are best achieved through an active, unrestricted market, together with the reduction of the current excessive annual fees being charged by the City of Newport Beach ("City") for the use of moorings. In short, this report finds that, like other goods and services, a free market with rights to transfer results in affordability and promotes responsibility.

Historical Policy Supports Transfers
Moorings in Newport Harbor were pioneered by early boaters who were encouraged to contribute to the development of the harbor by establishing moorings that allowed boaters affordable use of the harbor. These early pioneers experimented with different arrangements including anchors, weights, single point and double point moorings, and various tackle. Some things worked, others didn't. Prevailing winds and differing currents in areas of the harbor were found to affect the accessibility and safety of moorings and boats. Adjustments were made for tides and the seasonal winds and storms which could come from different directions, including the occasional Santa Ana winds and winter storms. Equipment was placed, lost, broken, modified and redone at significant cost to the pioneers of the day, and there was always the risk of in ury from a boat breaking loose. The establishment of the moorings by individuals and some yacht clubs was encouraged by agencies having oversight, including the Federal Government, State Government and City of Newport Beach, all at the risk and expense of these boating pioneers. (see footnote i)
With the addition of the moorings in the 1930s, boating activities flourished. Tourism and property values increased significantly, all to the benefit of the local businesses and property owners, as well as to the benefit of boaters. The sailboat became the symbol of Newport Beach. Moorings were given formal approval. The City did not question the right of the person(s) who developed the mooring to transfer his or her right to use the mooring to a

family member, a friend, or another boat owner. No one questioned the rights of those who received the mooring by transfer to do the same. Yacht clubs were among these early pioneers. They and other groups were able to establish programs that developed sailing and boating skills for children, as well as educational programs that developed leadership skills.

In the 1970s, the City of Newport Beach took over the administration of the technical requirements for moorings and established use fees for boats on moorings. A reasonable fee was imposed for the use of the harbor and uniform regulations put in place. In doing so, the City was not charging a fee for something the City or State had developed. The development had been accomplished by these early pioneers at their risk, expense, and safety, not at the risk or expense of the City or State.

It is instructive to look at other public resources developed through the permit process.

Permit holders with rights to use public resources have a long and accepted history in this country, to the benefit of both the permit holder and to the nation. Radio and television networks, for example, were developed knowing that the airwaves belonged to the public. Oil and gas exploration is another example of a permitted use on and under public land. Grazing rights is a third example. Ranchers are allowed the use of public lands for grazing cattle. In every case, the development by the private sector would not have occurred unless the permit holder was assured that the permit could be transferred. Because of the great risk inherent in these early endeavors, the enterprise would never have been attempted by the early pioneers unless they had the implied understanding that what they developed was transferable to those who followed. Simply put, without transferability the endeavor would have been a waste of time.

In connection with these endeavors, the government, of course, had, and has, the right to ask the permit holders to give back something for the public good. In the case of oil and gas rights, a fee based on a percent of sales was, and is, charged. In the case of television airway rights, the station is required to offer programming with public content, such as news, election coverage, and other public interest services. In the case of moorings, the permittees give back significantly to the public. They give back by maintaining the equipment available to other boaters when boaters seek shelter from the sea. They give back by providing moorings for major events, such as the Newport to Ensenada race, the largest international race in America.

They give back by paying an annual fee to the City. They give back by being the eyes and ears of the harbor, reporting problems to the City, and the permittees which are yacht clubs give back with the many educational and childrens' programs, including sailing, boating and water safety programs. Our system of transferable permits has a long history. It is a win -win for the government, for the people, and for the permit holders. The denial of transferability to the pioneers and their transferees is not only contrary to the history and spirit of this great rsee footnote ii]
enterprise, but the destruction of transfer rights also hurts the City and the public.

The American people have benefited from the private sector's development of public resources. The few examples mentioned above demonstrate this: the development of radio and television, the development of oil reserves with the resulting reduction of dependence on foreign oil, and the availability of affordable meat as a result of grazing rights on public land.

None of these activities are "giveaways". Instead, they are great benefits to the American people. These public benefits have been achieved at great risk to those early pioneers, and to those to whom the rights were transferred, and who continue to contribute to the development and maintenance of these resources. A look at this history provides an understanding of why transferability of mooring permits is good public policy.

Transferability Promotes Affordable Access
Affordable access to public resources, including access to sailing and boating activities in Newport Harbor is good public policy, provided that the activity is done safely and responsibly. While public access is something to be encouraged, it is not a right. Everyone, for example, does not have the right to own a radio or television station. There are only so many airwaves and channels. It would not be fair to the pioneers of these resources to lose their permits, just because some folks think that everyone should have the right to own a television channel by putting themselves on a waiting list. CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox should not be required to give up their permits to people on a waiting list who are unwilling to compensate the networks for the development they, or their predecessors, have done. The resource is limited. It was the early pioneers who, at great risk, developed these resources.

They did so with the expectation of being able to transfer them in the future. These original permit holders and their successors should continue to have the right to transfer their permits provided they follow reasonable regulations regarding the use of moorings.

Affordable access is best achieved by acknowledging, furthering, and encouraging transferability. Here's how: A holder of a permit with full rights to transfer can transfer his or her rights to a family member as a gift, or by a sale with full payment at the time of transfer, or by a sale with a small down payment with payments over time (an installment sale).

On the other hand, when rights to transfer are limited, access is reduced or denied in a number of ways. First, restrictions on transfer make it unattractive for an individual to acquire a mooring because the person acquiring the mooring may not be able to transfer the mooring.

This results in fewer moorings available for acquisition. Second, with fewer moorings available, fewer people will be able to acquire a mooring.

To further illustrate this principle, the current restriction renting moorings by permit holders substantially reduces the availability of moorings to those who may not have the ability to acquire a mooring. Renting a mooring is just a form of short-term transfer of the right to use a mooring. According to the Harbormaster, at any given time there are 120 vacant moorings, most of which sit idle for years. If the restriction on renting moorings were eliminated there would be a free market for mooring rentals. This would be far better than the City renting only a very small supply of moorings. Allowing access to a substantially larger number of rentals would result in both a dramatic increase in public access to moorings, and with the expansion of supply, the cost to rent a mooring would go down. The City's current artificial manipulation of the rental market for moorings restricts access to the public by artificially reducing the number of moorings available for rent and at the same time driving up the price of the few available rentals of moorings owned by the City. This point about renting moorings is mentioned to simply illustrate how restrictions on transfers (a rental being a form of short-term transfer) results in less access and higher prices to the public.

As mentioned above, putting aside renting a mooring, the transfer of mooring rights can take many forms. The person transferring the mooring rights could transfer the mooring to a member of his or her family or could ask a non -family member for a one-time payment, or he or she could accept payments over time to make the acquisition affordable.

Transferability Means Responsibility

It is a well-known fact that the more a person has a stake in an enterprise, the more responsible the person will be. The opposite is also true. The lower the stakes, the less one cares about the enterprise. Pick any human activity to see the principle at work. Pride of ownership is an established principle. If transfer rights are eliminated, there is little incentive for mooring owners (i.e. owners of the mooring equipment and the permit rights) to care about their moorings, or about how they are maintained, or about what boats end up on the moorings. Problems will result from the devaluation of mooring rights, including issues with the maintenance of moorings, types and sizes of boats on moorings, possible equipment/mooring tackle failure, safety, and crime. How safe would it be for a kayak or paddle board to navigate through a future mooring field where the permittees have little or no stake in their moorings? Historically, permit holders had the right to transfer, and as a result, they maintained their boats and their moorings. They had pride of ownership. It is easy to see that transferability promotes the responsible use of the mooring fields. Surely, the public good is not served by the elimination of transferability. It is just the opposite - Transferability means Responsibility.

Transferability Provides Revenue to the City
If transfers are no longer allowed, the City would receive no revenue from transfers.

Allowing transfers means substantial revenue to the City.

Profiting from Mooring Transfers is a Myth
In addressing transferability of moorings, some people have expressed concerns that transfer of moorings is a form of profiting from a public resource, although the same people would likely not deny the right of a marina owner to sell his or her marina together with the transfer of the right to use the tidelands, nor would they deny the right of a homeowner to transfer the right to the use of the tidelands around his or her dock when selling a waterfront home, or the right of permit holder for oil and gas extraction on public land to transfer that permit.

The concern that a mooring holder profits from a public resource when the mooring is transferred is a myth. While it is true that it is possible that a person could transfer a mooring for an amount more than what it was acquired for, it's just as true that someone can lose money on the sale of a mooring. For example, if a person acquired a mooring in 2009, it is likely they would have paid about $ 1,000 per foot, but if they sold the mooring any time between 2012 and 2015, it is likely they would have sold it for about $500 per foot, or a 50% decrease. What is more, if they acquired the mooring in 2009 for $ 1,000 per foot and sold it this last year, they would have received about the same amount or even less since they would have to pay the transfer fee, as well as having paid the maintenance, inspection and other costs of having a mooring for the years before the transfer. If inflation was factored in, the person transferring the morning would have lost even more money. The concern about profiting from public resources is simply a myth.

As discussed elsewhere, it is unfair to single out mooring permit holders when almost every other type of permit holder of a public resource is freely able to transfer their permits in an open market, including the transfer of permits to use the tidelands by marina owners and by homeowners with docks.

Conclusion — Transferability Means Access, Affordability, and Responsibility
The City should not enact any ordinance that would restrict the transferability of moorings.

Responsibility is a two-way street. The City should acknowledge the debt it owes to the pioneers who came forward and who risked their time, money, and personal safety to establish the moorings. This debt should be honored by acknowledging what has always been known: transferability is fair to those who created the moorings and to those who acquired the moorings from them.

Avoiding restrictions on transferability also allows more access by the public and furthers responsible boating and enjoyment of our great harbor.

Respectfully Submitted,
56� ".

L. Scott Karlin
Email: ScottKarlingYahoo.com
Cell: 949-371-8228
Footnote [i]
The article on the next page is from the Newport Harbor Yacht ClUb 1991 historical documents, referring in part advertisements in the 1930s encouraging individuals to establish moorings in Newport Harbor:

inense ballroom ... large boat locker room
.. � sail loft ... mooring and dock service
under the supervision of Leonard G. Swales
... house manager, Mr. Neal ... house chef,
John Banks.

During this era the Newport Harbor Cham-
ber of Commerce ran a variety of advertise-
mclits in the same magazine, to lure yacht
owners and their wallets to Newport Beach
mith such attractions as:
• Pay no rent to the city for mooring space if
you maintain a private mooring.
• You can keep your boat at your front door
if you own a home at Newport Harbor.
• Ycar-round climate. Warmer ocean water.

Every modern comfort and convenienm
An hour froni Los Angeles.
• Like IlUnicrous other Balboa hollic
owners, Harry J. Bauer of [��mdenj (ClUb
member) takes advantage of the oppor-
tunity offered and keeps his [02400t, all -
steel, topmast schooner Puritanat his frotit
door.

The Log of the Newport Harbor
Yacht Club
There is no record oFa club yearbook, Tosta,
or other official publication from itpq through
1937. The last existine, issue of the dub'sVotor
and Sail yearbook was published in late icn,;.

After that, there appear to have been no club
publications until a new yearbook w;ts pub-
lished in 1937, The annuil Commodore's
Scrapbook and short-lived "Main Brace"
newsletter were launclml in 195o,;md bbrd(hi
The llliiidwas first published in Fcbruiry 19q.
111fific Coast V?, .111ing in,�ganne un a moullily
T 11 E D r 1� 1; 1 , � I o N Y I A V N: I') 'o P) 11
refers to April 1935 issue of Podflc %pper rnagazine
From The Newpon Herbor Ya* Oub, @ 1991 Newport Harbor Yacht Club, Allan Trare- Steve Barnard editors 61 FOOTNOTE (ii). The federal government owns the airwaves and holds these lands, in effect, in a public trust. In the case of airwaves, they FCC was created by President Roosevelt in the 1930s, and only requires the permit holders (e.g. CBS, ABC, NBC) to give back to the community, with public content (e.g. news, election coverage etc). In the case of Oil and Gas, the permittee is required to give about 12.5% of the selling price of the oil and gas to the government. The system of permits has a long history and only requires some "give back" by the permit holder.

Regarding permits for Television airwaves: See
hU://chnm.gmu.edu/e2Lploring/20thcentui3�/regulatingtelevision/ The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency. In return, broadcasters had: an obligation to serve the interest of the community.

This obligation requires the licensee to 'ascertain the needs of the community'and then provide program service to foster public understanding of those issues. How the licensee provides programming to serve the needs [was] left to the licensee's discretion.

Regarding oil and gas permits, see hLtp:Hewg.orgZoiI and gasZpart2j2h j2
Since 1982, thefederal government has leased or offeredfor oil and gas drilling 229 million acres of

public andprivate land in 12 western states. Lessees pay a royalty of 12.5 percent to the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service on the amount or value of the oil or gas removed or soldfrom each lease.

Some references used in the above article
Bureau of Land Management (BLM LR2000). 2004. Correspondence from BLM to Environmental Working Group, July 19, 2004.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM Leasing Instructions). 2004. General Oil and Gas Leasing Instructions. Accessed online May 17, 2004 at htip:// www.ut.blm.gov:80/MineralsAd-judication /general — info.html
Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office (BLM Rawlins Exceptions). 2003-2004.

Wildlife, Greater Sage -grouse & Raptor Winter Range Exceptions to Date, October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004. The report was last updated June 18, 2004.

Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office (BLM Pinedale Wildlife Exceptions). 2003.

Wildlife Winter Range Exceptions 2002-2003. The report was last updated December 26, 2002.

Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office (BLM Pinedale Raptor Exceptions 2003). 2003.

Raptor Winter and Nesting Exceptions 2002-2003. The report was last updated August 1, 2003.

From: Jim Palmer
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Request to postpone votes on moorings at 7/9/2024 City Council meeting Date: July 08, 2024 4:46:57 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the afe.

July 8, 2024
To: Honorable Mayor Will O'Neill and City Councilmembers Re: City Council Agenda July 9, 2024
Draft Resolution 2024-46 & Draft Resolution 2024-47 Moorings City Council
First of all, thank you for recognizing the absurdity of the Harbor Commission Draft Resolution 2024-46 Harbor Commission Recommendations and enabling City Staff to create Draft Resolution 2024-47 Alternative Fees. Given the short period for review, I respectfully ask the City Council to not vote on any mooring related resolution at the July 9, 2024 meeting and postpone any vote on the matter until at least a later scheduled council meeting.

Jim Palmer
Mooring Permittee
949-433-6512
.0 impalmer8088&gmail.com

From: Admin
To: Deot - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Re: NMA Comments - City Council Meeting Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) - City Council July 9th, 2024 Date: July 08, 2024 4:57:01 PM
r=ERNAL ENMul DO 1NO-m-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 6 Dear Mayor O'Neill and Honorable Council Members,
The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) respectfully opposes both the mooring rate recommendations put forth by the Harbor Commission (Draft Resolution 2024-46) and the alternate recommendation proposed by City Staff (Draft Resolution 2024-47). We believe both resolutions are flawed and very much would Like to partner with City Staff to work on a resolution amenable to all stakeholders.

Draft Resolution 2024-46 Harbor Commission Mooring Rate Recommendation: The NMA believes the proposed increase in mooring rates by as much as 500% does not align with the City's commitment or its Longstanding practice of providing moorings as an essential and affordable access point to our harbor. Among numerous issues, we find it unjust to tie rustic (water-onLy) mooring permit rates to the fuLL-service slip rates at Balboa Yacht Basin Marina, as these are fundamentally different arrangements.

Draft Resolution 2024-47 City Staff Mooring Rate Recommendation: The NMA has not had sufficient time to carefully analyze the City Staff recommendation, which involves converting privately owned mooring tackle permits to city -owned mooring Licenses and establishing new restrictions on transferability despite promises as recently as November 2023 that permit transferability would remain intact. Further, it appears this proposal would require mooring holders to eventually surrender their privately owned mooring tackle to the City. Such a significant proposal warrants a thorough public review process. We note with concern that this staff proposal was only made available for public review Less than one business day ago (July 5th). While we appreciate the effort to provide an alternative to the contentious Harbor Commission recommendation, the complexity of the staff proposal demands careful public scrutiny. We are particularly surprised by the suggestion that the City take over all moorings in the harbor, a concept previously unheard of directly from the City Staff, City Council, or the Harbor Commission. We seek clarity on the intent and objectives behind this recommendation.

If Council is interested in this alternate recommendation, we respectfully ask Council to hold a study session on this alternative prior to voting on it.

Discussion: In determining mooring permit rates, it is important to recognize that mooring permit holders bear the costs related to moorings, including equipment, tackle, and maintenance. Therefore, a fair mooring rate should reflect the cost of occupying a small area of water surface, with no additional charges for amenities not provided by the City. It is unfair and unreasonable to base "water only" mooring permit rates on fuLL- service marina slips or yacht club mooring rents, which include provided berthing structure and other amenities not applicable to moorings.

It is worth noting that mooring permit rates are already significantly higher than rates for most other tideland permits in the harbor. For instance, private pier/dock permit rates are $0.56 per square foot, while mooring permit rates equate to $1.36 per square foot for

using the same water surface for the same purpose. Furthermore, mooring permit holders coLLectivelycontribute more to the City tidelands fund than holders of other permit classifications. In 2023, approximately 750 offshore mooring permit holders contributed $1,187,000, whereas about 750 residential pier permit holders contributed only $278,000 to the tidelands fund, which supports harbor activities. This demonstrates that mooring permit holders already pay more than their fair share of permit fees both individually and collectively.

The Newport Mooring Association has expressed significant concerns regarding the flawed appraisal and methodology used to develop the Harbor Commission's recommendation, as detailed in the Letter sent to the Harbor Commission on February 14th, 2024.

We respectfully ask Council to direct staff to workwith the stakeholders on finding common ground on the mooring rates in Newport Harbor.

Thank you for considering our concerns regarding the proposed mooring rate adjustments. We recognize and appreciate recent efforts by Mayor O'NeiI.I. and Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton to connect with NMA board members, and respectfully request the Council's continued careful deliberation on this matter to ensure fair and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders involved.

Sincerely,
The Newport Mooring Association Board of Directors

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Keith Garrison
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:19 PIVI
To: [email protected]
Cc: Cheryl Nowak; Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Newport Mooring Fee Increases? No!
bear Wi I I,
You represent me as a Newport Beach resident who lives on Island Avenue, and I am a mooring holder A-241. If these increases get approved I will be forced to sell my boat and attempt to sell my mooring which will now have no value. I sincerely ask you to vote no.

With best regards,
Keith Garrison
PS. I believe that there will be many lawsuits facing the city as well.

Keith Garrison - VP/Gen. Mqr.

GBF Enterprises, Inc.
2709 Holladay St.

Santa Ana, CA 92705
714-979-7131 Fax 714-979-1815
www.qbfenterprises.com
('ert if ied
e--N
VBENC
mwn's Business Enterprise,
The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary and could be subject to U.5. Export Laws and/or contra I led by the U5 International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAP) 22 CFP 120-130. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this emai I has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this document and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, reproduction, or further viewing of this email without permission from the author is strictly prohibited. C7131' Enterprises Inc. takes no responsibility, either direct or indirect, or any unauthorized dissemination of such data or materials

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Steven Legere
Sent: July 05, 2024 2:24 PIVI
To: [email protected]
Subject: Moring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Moring rate rip off
Sent from my Phone

Mulvey, Jennifer I
From: kathryn777
Sent: July 05, 2024 3:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring hikes
Councitmember WoneiLt,
I'LL make this brief. PLease reconsider the unf air rate hike on the moorings. At the very Least, the rates shouLd be made in smaLl increments. Please be the voice of reason that so many of the residents voted for.

Kathryn O'NeaL
Seiit from my Verizon, Sarisung Galaxy smartphone

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: moo owen
Sent: July 06, 2024 11:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Back Archive Move Delete Spam Vote no on Newport Beach Mooring fees increase and alternative mooring fee schedule which would convert all mooring permits into city licenses
7 't �' nKZ 40
ERNA "I" C"k tinks or attach t�nents �Qss �ou , r . e 'C"O� sei?der and'knOlAf the CO ROT C 6
Please vote NO on these proposed rate increases in Newport Harbor but work with the community to develop a fair solution for all boaters. These increases will only be affordable to the rich and take away the opportunity of boat ownership and enjoyment for everyone else. Please vote no on the rate increases, don't take the dreams and opportunities away from others because they aren't rich enough to own a mooring to keep a boat. Not everyone can own a Bayfront home with a private dock, moorings are a more affordable alternative for everyone else.

Thank you for helping us out by voting No on the proposed rate increase.

A. Owen

Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork
Sent: July 07, 2024 8:40 AM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Moorings
I take confiscation of individuaL's assets by governments very seriousLy! On Jut 7, 2024, at 8:18 AM, O'Neil.l., WilLiam wrote:

Received and the tone is noted.

Mayor Will O'Neill[
woneiL[Pnewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 8:02 AM, Mark Sork wrote:

Ok... I know you're new to this town. I'll. try to expLain how it works.

The rights of mooring permit holders have always included the right to transfer the mooring at a price agreeabLe to the buyer and setter. HistoricalLy, this price averaged around $1000 per foot with higher prices for Larger moorings.

As a part of the transfer process the City requires and confirms the amount that was paid by the buyer for the permit. It is on the City's transfer appLication. The City has no defense in attempting to state they are not involved in the process of funds transferred.

You can quibbLe aLL you want with investment or expenditure but you can't deny your actions wiL[ intentionaLLy harm the permit hoLders ... manyfor generations.

These resoLutions are a disgrace to members of the boating community! On Jut 7, 2024, at 7:46 AM, O'NeiLL, WiLtiam
wrote:

Mulvey, Jennifer I
Subject: FW: Moorings
From: Mark Sork
Sent: J u ly 07, 2024 8:02 AM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Moorings
Ok... I know you're new to this town. I'LL try to exp[ain how it works.

The rights of mooring permit hoLders have always included the right to transfer the mooring at a price agreeabLe to the buyer and seLLer. Historicatty, this price averaged around $1000 per foot with higher prices for Larger moorings.

You can quibbLe aLL you want with investment or expenditure but you can't deny your actions wiLL intentionaLly harm the permit hoLders ... many for generations.

These resolutions are a disgrace to members of the boating community! On JuL 7, 2024, at 7:46 AM, O'NeiLL, William wrote:

If it's an expenditure, why woutd it be wiped out if you'd be getting the access to the mooring?
Mayor Will O'Neffi
woneiLL(c-onewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 7:45 AM, Mark Sork wrote:

Expenditure if that works better for you.

On JuL 7, 2024, at 7:41 AM, O'NeiLL, WiLLiam
wrote:

Investment?
Mayor WiLL O'NeiLl
woneitt(@newportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 7:38 AM, Mark Sork
wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Sork

Date: July 5, 2024 at 2:26:14 PM
PDT
To: woneiLt(@newportbeachca.gov
Subject: Moorings
H i,
I am in the process of purchasing
an offshore mooring. I have
previously owned moorings over
the Last 40 years.

In reading the city's proposal to
eliminate permits and convert to
licenses it appears that in 2028 1
would no longer have the ability to
transfer the mooring ... essentially
wiping out my investment. Is this
true?
Respectfully,
Mark Sork
316 Ruby Ave.

Balboa Island, CA 92662
949-500-0148
2 Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo
Sent: July 07, 2024 1:10 PM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
I appreciate your follow-through. Thank you for your service.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrig(W-gmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 1:08 PM, O'NeiL[, WiLLiam wrote:

Thankyou. I shouLd have incLuded a
Link: https://newportbeach.Legistarl.com/newportbeach/meetings/2024/7/3726 A City C ouncil. 24-07-09 Agenda. pdf?id=49052434-01 e6-4573-a924-9064c 115091 d Mayor Will O'Neill
wonei[L(,'Onewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 1:06 PM, Michael Romo
wrote:

I appreciate your considerate response. Obviously, I haven't read the staff report but it would seem the Harbor Commission's recommendation might have been a better approach.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrigAmmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:59 PM, O'Neill, William
wrote:

Got it. You may want to read through the staff report. The harbor commission did recommend a phased -in increase. And our staff is recommending something different.

Will O'Neill
Newport Beach Mayor
From: Michael Romo
Date: Sunday, JuLy 7, 2024 at 12:50 PM
To: O'Nei[L, WiLLiam
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
You may find either one of these options a more palatable solution than a one-time huge increase. If you are saying a rate increase hasn't happened in a Longtime, a more gradual
increase that is equitable and based on a quantifiabLe
measure, such as the annual cost of Living percentage or the rate of inflation.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomqCd-gmaill.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On JuL 7, 2024, at 12:43 PM, O'NeiLL, William
wrote:

Well, that hasn't happened in a Longtime.

Mayor Will O'NeilL
woneiLL(cbnewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On JuL 7, 2024, at 12:36 PM,
Michael Romo

wrote:

A rate increase calculated on the
basis of the cost of living for
Orange County or the annual rate
of infLation.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromorrig(ftmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304

Mu Ivey, Jennifer I
Subject: FW: Outrageous mooring rate increases
From: Michael Romo
Sent: July 07, 2024 12:51 PM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Outrageous mooring rate increases
You may find either one of these options a more palatabte solution than a one-time huge increase. If you are saying a rate increase hasn't happened in a tong time, a more gradual increase that is equitabte and based on a quantifiabLe measure, such as the annual, cost of Living percentage or the rate of infLation.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomq�D_qmailxom
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:43 PIVI, O'Neitt, William wrote:

WeR, that hasn't happened in a longtime.

Mayor Will O'Neitt
woneill(J5bnewportbeachca.go
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jut 7, 2024, at 12:36 PIVI, Michael, Romo
wrote:

A rate increase calcuLated on the basis of the cost of Living for Orange County or the annual rate of infLation.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomcd-Damail.com
c: (415) 509-8304
On Jut 7, 2024, at 12:26 PIVI, O'Neil.l., WiLliam
wrote:

What do you personaLly beLieve a fair soLution wouLd be? Mayor Wilt O'Neitt

wone i UP newpo rtbea c hca. go
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 7, 2024, at 12:23 PM, Michael Romo
wrote:

I am a home owner on Balboa Island and have the
privilege of an onshore mooring that has been in my
family since 1958. We have kept the mooring
maintained faithfully and I pay my property taxes
promptly.

I urge you to vote no on the proposed grossly
unfairly large mooring rate increases and to work
with the community to develop a fair solution.

Respectfully,
MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomg(R-gmail.com
c: (415) 509-8304

Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Please Vote NO: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase From: Matt Trenton
Sent: July 07, 2024 5:48 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Please Vote NO: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase Dear City Council Members —
I am writing this email regarding the potential mooring rate increase that has been a subject of discussion at Harbor Committee public hearings for several months now. I understand that the City Council may be voting on the potential rate increase sometime in the near future.

I have attended several Harbor Committee meetings during the past months. There have been several mooring permittees that have attended these meetings as well. I strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed rate increase recommended by the Harbor Committee. While I have heard numerous individuals speak up to ask the committee to reconsider their stance, I did not witness any individuals in support of the proposed rate increase.

The Harbor Committee was presented with an assessment from one of the largest real estate firms in the world (CBRE) and fails to recognize their findings. These findings were dramatically different from the report that the Harbor Committee is using for their recommendation. The Committee has formed a recommendation from the single opinion of an individual that does not appear to have significant credentials to provide an assessment. It is hard to believe that such a dramatic decision would be based off one single opinion.

The Harbor Committee has repeatedly stated that it is their requirement, by law, to impose fair rental rates for moorings. However, the current monthly assessment for mooring permittees is 6x the rate that is paid by pier/dock permittees which fall under the same tidal lands governance. If the proposed mooring rates are accepted, this would skyrocket to somewhere around 25x the rate for pier/dock permittees. It is demeaning to listen to the Committee discuss how this rate increase is fair and part of their requirements whereas pier/dock permittees fall under the same tidal lands 'fair market rate' requirements.

I trust that you are fully informed of the details regarding this significant decision and hope that you request the Harbor Commission reconsider their proposal. I do not feel that any mooring permittees are opposed to a reasonable rate increase but the current proposal to quintuple rates within the next few years is implausible.

Thank you for your consideration,
Matt Trenton

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: natalie fogarty
Sent: July 07, 2024 4:46 PIVI
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: mooring rates
Have read the 2 appraisaLs and information provided by moorinh association and Chris Benson. I imagine their information is correct?
Thank for you response!
NataLie Fogarty
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024, 4:30 PIVI O'Neill, WiLLiam wrote:

To be fair, the City Council hasn't decided anything yet.

But before responding, have you had a chance to read the staff report? Will O'Neill
Newport Beach Mayor
From: natatie fogarty
Date: Sunday, JuLy 7, 2024 at 4:19 PM
To: O'Nei[L, WiLLiam
Subject: mooring rates
I guess that the council is determined to put mooring rates out of reach to current mooring holders that are moderate income individuals. I see that the council wants more affluent people to populate the area and good Luck to the others. Please Let other members realize this.

N ata li e f oga rty
I

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Tina Richards
Sent: July 08, 2024 2:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Hi
I voted for you
Thought conservative guywil.l. do the right thing
I was cdm ambassador Lived here 54 yrs
I know a Lot of peopLe
This mooring hike raise is outLandish
It's not fair
If one then aU
BaLboa Island dock owners
Yacht cLub owners
Why is it mooring issue
Thank u for being kind

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Carter Harrington
Sent: July 08, 2024 2:33 PM
To: [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024.

Team
PLease do notvote on these proposed rate increases and workwith the communityto deveLop a fair and equitabLe solution.

The goal of the city should be to maintain a boating environmentthat everyone can afford, notjust miLtionaires. This couLd destroy the fabric of the community with generations of boating famiLies that will be eLiminated by a fautty subjective appraisal. that wouLd never hold up in court as objective.

PLease consider the objective CBRE appraisal not the subjective Netzer appraisal. We are open to increases that are fair and justified with reat worLd data. The Appraisal was done as directed by the City -Scott Cunningham. Emails confirm, having two phone catLs with the Appraiser, "I've had two Long conversations with Jim regarding the 2016 Mooring Appraisal. The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appraisal results wilL took much different than the 2016 numbers." There are many more incriminating emails.

Mooring Permit hol.clers atready may much higher rates than other ticleLand permit rates, inctuding docks. This is textbook discrimination. We already pay more than our fair share into the City TicleLand Fund. This significant fee increase is simpty not fair or equitabLe. Gifting of pubLic Lands that surround the docks. On average a dock owner pays $12-30 per month for docking a boat over the same submerged tideLands The harbor master won't discuss these issues as he is recused from the issue. Howisthisfair? Ptease can we discuss a fair solution to make it a win -win? Cawfer Harringtorn
Senior Vice President I Principal
Lee & Associates I Newport Beach
D 949.724.4710
C 949.202.9439
0 949.724.1000
charringtonCa)_Iee-associates.com
LEE &

ASSOCIATES

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES

NEWPORT BEACH

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Christian Romo
Sent: July 08, 2024 3:51 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Christian Romo
Subject: Please vote no at tomorrow's meeting re: Mooring Rate Increase Dear Newport Beach City Council Representative,
My name is Christian Romo, and I am writing to you to respectfully urge you to vote no at tomorrow's meeting regarding the Mooring Rate Increase petition.

My Grandparents bought their Balboa Island home in 1958. 1 was blessed to have spent summers down there since I was a small child. My Grandfather worked very hard to properly and diligently maintain the mooring that he was fortunate to purchase for his sons, my father and late uncle.

As such, we were able to moor our small boat (a Kite) and sail it every day during our vacations. It was because of this mooring that I learned to sail, which grew into a lifelong passion of mine.

My family is one of the few original families on the island. We pay our taxes promptly; we maintain our home and property and that extends to the diligent care and maintenance my Dad devotes to our mooring. Every year my Dad does the hard work necessary to make sure our mooring is in tip-top shape. My brothers and I would like to continue that tradition.

But this proposed rate increase could very well make this intention a distinct impossibility. Such an exorbitant increase will make it difficult for my generation to afford the mooring.

Please consider other revenue streams or at least work with the community on a plan that won't break the bank of old -school islanders like my family.

Please vote no on this unfair rate increase.

Your respectfully,
Christian Romo

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Dr. Richard A. Navarro
Sent: July 08, 2024 4:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item No. 13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024 10TERNAL EMAIL] DO N01'CLICK links or . a, I tt r a c - I . i m I ents untess you r r e , cogniz(-., the sender and kn6wthe 24-0840 - Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dr. Richard Navarro, Ph.D.

Mooring C-72
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item No. 13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024
Date: July 8, 2024
The City of Newport Beach manages the tidelands in Newport Harbor pursuant to State of California statutes. Therefore, the City CounciL is accountabLe to all CaLifornia citizens, not just the residents of Newport Beach in administering the tidetands.

I write today as a CaLifornia citizen who is deeply concerned with the mismanagement in estabLishing fair market vaLue (FMV) of private uses of pubLic tidelands, discrimination in rates paid by users (in some cases gifting), and disregard for goodgovernance by sLipping into Resolution 2024-47 a significant change Mooring Permit Transfers without adequate pubLic input or a reasonable period to consider the proposal.

Therefore, I strongly urge the City Council, to reject ResoLution 2024-46, Resollution 2024-47, and Ordinance 2024-15. Furthermore, I urge the City Council, to meet with representatives of the Newport Mooring Association, and other stakeholders to achieve a fair, nondiscriminatory pLan for managing pubLic tidetands for aL1 users.

For your further edification, I would Like to make the following comments on the Staff Report. 1 . The City may charge different rates for different uses when it is supported by an appraisal that makes distinctions in value (page 2, paragraph 6).

Comment: Currently, dock permits are a quarter of offshore mooring permits. Are docks vaLued less than moorings? CLearly, docks are much more vaLuable, yet the permit rates do no reftect FMV for aLL uses. The City shouLd require an appraisaL FMV for docks and establish dock permit rates accordingly.

2. While the Beacon Bay Bill does not define discrimination, staff interprets that charging different rates for the same type of use that does not have a different value ... would be discrimination in rates and is prohibited by the SLC (page 2, paragraph 6).

Comment: Under both Resolutions 2024-46 and 2024-47, Yacht Clubs and the LICA receive a different rate for the same type of use that does not have a different value and therefore constitutes discrimination according to the Staff's interpretation.

3. —charging less than fair market value to any individual or entityprivately using the public tidelands would be a gift of public funds orgift of public lands and is prohibited (page 2, paragraph 7).

Comment: Dock permitees pay only for the public tidelands covered by the docks, not the boats tied to the docks. The gift of public tidelands covered by the boats tied to the docks constitute a gift of public funds or gift of public lands and is prohibited. The SLC, in the April 9, 2024, Letter highlighted this discrepancy and advised the City to address it.

4. ...the rate fora 40-footmooring was set at $36.45 per linear footpermonth, compared to the rate of $1.67per linear footper month in effect when the 2010 Resolution was approved (page 3, paragraph 7).

Comment: This is an error. Staff may have meant per annum rather than per month.

5. Comment: Page 4, Harbor Commission Consideration, omits reference to the methodology used to determine FMV in 2016 by Netzer & Associates, which was rejected in 2023 by the same appraiser with possible conflicts of interests, Leading to accusations of a flawed and curated appraisal to achieve a predetermined outcome by some members of the Harbor Commission.

6. Comment: The City's response to the Grand Jury has been 14% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index set for 5-years with annual adjustments based on the CPI. Resolution 2024-46 would adjust rates annually by 24% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index, significantly escalating annual rate increases. This amendment was slipped into the Harbor Commission recommendation at the April meeting without public notice or discussion and exemplifies unfair governance and undermines public trust.

Thank you for your consideration.

Richard A. Navarro, Ph.D.
+1 909 263-3881 (Mobile)
professorrnavarro(agmaiL.com

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Shawn Maxwell
Sent: July 08, 2024 6:15 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Fabric of Newport (Moorings)
Hello,
This will be the most impactful and remembered decision you make as an elected council member, The electors will remember.

Please do not vote on these proposed rate increases and work with the community to develop a fair and equitable solution.

The goal of the city should be to maintain a boating environment that everyone can afford, not just millionaires. This will destroy the fabric of the community with generations of boating families that will be eliminated by a faulty subjective appraisal that would never hold up in court as objective.

Please consider the objective CBRE appraisal not the subjective Netzer appraisal. We are open to increases that are fair and justified with real world data. The Appraisal was done as directed by the City - Scott Cunningham. Emails confirm, having two phone calls with the Appraiser, "I've had two long conversations with Jim regarding the 2016 Mooring Appraisal. The net net is when we are ready (and funded) the appraisal results will look much different than the 2016 numbers." Mooring Permit holders already may have much higher rates than other tideland permit rates, including docks. This is textbook discrimination. We already pay more than our fair share into the City Tideland Fund.

This significant fee increase is simply not fair or equitable. Gifting of public lands that surround the docks. On average a dock owner pays $12-30 per month for docking a boat over the same submerged tidelands The harbor master won't discuss these issues as he is recused from the issue. How is this fair? Please can we discuss a fair solution to make it a win -win? Sincerely,
Shawn Maxwell
4th Generation Balboa Island Resident

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: [email protected]
Sent: July 08, 2024 6:40 PM
To: O'Neill, William
Subject: Re: Mooring Fee Increase; Please read
OK Thanks
On Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 04:34:57 PM PDT, O'Neill, William wrote:

Every email sent to the City Council is a public record. There is no anonymity in that. � ri�f . �-
Newport Beach Mayor
From: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2024 at 2:15 PM
To: O'Neill, William
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase; Please read
I know this is a little long but please take the time to read it.

Please keep me anonymous to the Harbor Department. I'm fearful of retaliation for what I'm sending you.

Please do not allow these outrageous, unfair and unwarranted Mooring Fee Increases of over 400%.

I have been a Mooring Permit (MP) holder in good standing for over 40 years. My family and I have long appreciated the ability to enjoy boating made possible by reasonable IVIP rates. I have dragged my 8 foot dinghy across the sand all these years knowing that was normal for the ability to access a mooring. I'm now in my 70s so it's harder every year but I still do it so our family can enjoy boating.

will be a long process, if even possible, with the new rates and non -transferability for the buyers. We had hoped to keep the boat and MP in the family forever. My dad and I built most of the boat and she's a beautiful boat.

Appraisals and Fair Rates
The appraiser the Harbor Commission used is comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare Tidelands with moorings to Real Estate with Tidelands, Marinas which operate for profit and Yacht Clubs which entice more members to join and gain financial benefits? When compared to all other mooring fields in California we are in line with their rates, as the Mooring Association appraisal demonstrates. Apples to apples! The Harbor Commissions appraiser states that rates are being increased in a San Diego mooring field but that turns out to be untrue!
When comparing Tidelands use for docks we pay much more per square foot or linear foot than houses with docks. I believe their docks can be rented creating a financial gain. I've seen them advertised through the years. Your appraiser states there is a market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it's illegal and puts the Permit holders at risk of losing their MP. The vast, vast majority of us abide by this rule. Don't punish us for the few that don't. Of course comparing Marinas to moorings is absurd. They have many amenities that moorings don't and operate for profit.

23. Is it really worth spending this exorbitant amount of our Tax Payer Money when they were more than adequate before?
Doing the Right Thing
This would be like telling someone renting an apartment from you that you're increasing their rent by 4 to 5 times. Obviously they would have no option but to leave in almost every case. Be reasonable basing rates on the CPI is fair. I learned we were using the CPI or 2% whichever is lower. It should have been based on the CPI only. Going back to 2016 when this rate formula was adopted and using just the CPI not the 2% to create new more fair rates would be the right thing to do.

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Dave Gubser
Sent: July 08, 2024 7:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: July9, 2024 Council Meeting on Mooring Changes Mr. C)'NeiL
We mooring owners are exhausted over the Last three (3) years attending mul.tipLe meetings with the Harbor Commission reviewing their stated mission to after the fee structure for their affordabLe boats.

This wil.l. subject many Long-term medium tier mooring owners' abiLity to enjoy and utiLize the beautiful, Newport Harbor surroundings. To date ALL these meetings, studies and mooring owners'testimony have been excLusiveLy directed to establishing new on -shore and off -shore mooring fees. We have had a community wide participation and many public reviews and comments that have resuLted in "proposed" new fees for those mooring categories. If this proposed rate structure is approved by the City Council. in the July 9 meeting it wiLL, when fully impLemented, raise those rates 500% over the City's current fee scheduLe. This wil.l. be a serious risk to any affordabLe "non -mega yacht", boat owner's abil.ity to enjoy the harbor and offshore ocean waters.

NOW on JuLy 5 1 received from our Newport Mooring Association the there is now a "new rider" nameLy Attachment K which is an alternate recommendation involving converting private moorings into city owned moorings. This is a complex recommendation that we are now seeing for the first time without time for a proper analysis.

The mooring permit holders deserve more time to review and analyze this alternate staff recommendation. I do not understand how such a major structure of individual permit ownership which has been forever in place since its inception can be unliterally changed thus wiping out its permit asset vaLue to the current owner with the City taking it over. There has been NO community participation nor public comment period to review the ramifications and impact to the permit hoLder. THIS MUST NOT PROCEED.

Dave Gubser- Island Resident

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Scott Rimland
Sent: J u ly 08, 2024 7:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring Rate Increase
Dear Mayor O'Neill,
I'm a 58-year resident of Newport Beach and a big fan of yours! Thanks for your hard work and being such a great representative of Newport Beach!
Please vote no against the mooring rate increase being considered by the council on July 9, 2024. It makes no sense and does appear discriminatory to have different tidelands rates for docks/piers, yacht club moorings and private mooring Licenses or sub leases. In addition, basing mooring rates off rates for docks in the Newport Basin makes no sense. I was a tenant in Newport Yacht Basin for 15 years untiLwe recently bought a Larger boat and a mooring. A dock is far superior to a mooring, it's almost impossible to compare the two. Yes, they are both places to store a boat but that's about it. I know your busy, so I won't make this a two -page Letter detailing the many differences. 24% of the price of a dock for a mooring rent is very unfair. In addition, the council appears to beset to consider altering the transferability of moorings which was never discussed at the Harbor Commission meetings prior to this.

At the very Least this item should be postponed or delayed so its impact can be fully understood.

I appreciate your time and consideration.

Regards,
Scott RimLand
1621 Ruth Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
714-904-1934

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Chase Corum
Sent: July 08, 2024 8:56 PM
To: Chase Corum
Subject: Mooring Rate Increase -- Thoughts and Considerations Council. Members,
I hope this e-mail, finds you we[[.

I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed mooring rate increase by the Harbor Commission.

As residents of Newport Beach and mooring owners ourselves, my family enjoy the benefits of affordable and accessible boating. Ensuring reasonable and affordabLe mooring rates is crucial for supporting continued access to marine activities for many residents. By keeping the rates manageable, the City can encourage more peopLe to enjoy our beautiful harbor and coastLine, fostering a vibrant community and a strong local. economy.

WhiLe I understand the desire to increase revenue, I hope the City Council. will. consider a more reasonable rate structure than that proposed by the Harbor Commission at this time. Striking a baLance that benefits boat owners, as well as the financial. interests of the City, ensures that everyone can experience the joys of Newport Beach's maritime offerings without significant financial barriers.

Thank you for your consideration. I took forward to attending tomorrow's council meeting.

Best regards,
Chase Corurn
Port Captain, Newport Beach / Greater Los Angeles
City Cruises Anchored by Hornblower
949-629-5457
[email protected]
cityexperiences.corn
2527 W. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92663
I 1�j -

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Gaile Oslapas
Sent: July 09, 2024 9:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I respectfully request your vote against offshore morning fee increases at tomorrow's city council meeting.

There is NO basis for fee increases when no services are provided: Mooring permittees must service their own moorings, there is no parking, amenities, nor dinghy storage.

A vote for fee increases will show favoritism toward Harbor Commission members rather than your loyal constituents.

Please be reasonable, just, and fair and vote for no fee increases. if anything, fees should decrease.

Gailute
Sent from my iPhone

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: Rich Stanley
Sent: July 09, 2024 10:07 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring Increase Bill
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Morning,
Please vote "no" on tonight's mooring increase bill. Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Rich Stanley B-131
Sent from my iPhone

Mulvey, Jennifer I
From: Erin Stanley
Sent: July 09, 2024 10:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: No on Mooring Increase
PLease vote No!
Erin Stanley
13131
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: scott allen
Sent: July 09, 2024 11:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Changes to mooring rates and policies
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor O'Neill,
There will be a vote tonight on the harbor department's suggested changes to mooring rates and policies concerning transferability.

The harbors department's changes seem unfair as it only applies to the private mooring permits and not the yacht clubs not does it address the inequity of the dock owner fees.

Please vote no on this or table the decisions until the various disputes can be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration. I enjoy your morning mayor's discussion with Poorman on KOCL.

Scott Allen
204 Amethyst
Balboa Island
7144699647

Mulvey, Jennifer
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Mayor Will O'Neill
Newport Beach City Council
O'Neill, William
July 09, 2024 11:21 AM
Brown, Leilani; Mulvey, Jennifer
FW: Following Up
NMA Proposal July 9, 2024 docx.pdf
From: Anne Stenton
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 10:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: O'NeiL[, William
Subject: Re: Foltowing Up
Good Morning Mayor ONeill,
Attached is an updated draft proposal I submitted to Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton. Please note we would need board approval on a final draft before moving forward.

Respectfully,
Anne
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 5:17 PM wrote:

Thankyou for note. Anne and I appreciate your time and tookforward to workingwith you and the rest of city council to find a soLution.

Best,
Jerry LaPointe
949-697-0685
I

From: O'Neill, William
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Anne Stenton
Cc: Jerry LaPointe
Subject: Re: Following Up
Jerry I hope you are feeling ok
Mayor WilL O'NeilL
woneill(cbnewportbeachca.gov
100 Civic Center Dr.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
On Jul 8, 2024, at 3:43 PM, Anne Stenton wrote:
11EXTERNAL NAILi DO NOT CLICK links or attach ments unless' you recognize the'sendet' and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon Mayor O'Neill,
I'd like to include Jerry in this meeting, but he is unfortunately testing positive for Covid. Would it be possible to set up a zoom call for tomorrow at 11:oo instead? Here is a link if that works for you:
https://us04web.zoom.uslj/76100484.r,lg?pwd=08nmovFBa23FQFuxxrWOOGQbGB2 LiV. 1
2 Thank you,
Anne
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 8:47 AM Anne Stenton wrote:

Great, thank you. I will see you Tuesday at 11:00.

Anne
On Jul 7, 2024, at 8:20 PM, O'Neill, William
wrote:

I am availabte at 11 am on Tuesday if you'd Like to meet again.

Mayor Will ONeill
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]

Newport Mooring Association
JULY 9, 2024
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Dear Mayor O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, and Esteemed City Council Members; The Newport Mooring Association understands that the subject of mooring permits and rate increases is on the agenda for the July 9th, 2024, City Council meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with some council members this week and discuss potential alternatives to the substantial rate increases and rate structure originally proposed by the Harbor Commission in January 2024. The Newport Mooring Association would like more time to collaborate with the City on a potential solution that provides additional revenue for the City but does not unfairly target mooring holders as a specific group of tideland users.

One option that we may be able to support as an alternative to the proposed plans Would be the following:
• A one-time "catch up" fee that brings up mooring rates with the average increase in slip fees in the harbor over the past 6 years. For example:
o Slips, on average, have increased 41 % over the past 6 years (Netzer, 2023) o Moorings have increased 12% over the past 6 years (2% per year) o Therefore, a one-time increase of 29% of what mooring fees were in 2016 would bring moorings in line with slip rent increases
• A cap on mooring permit sales at $1 000/ft and protection of mooring permit transferability as it exists today
• An agreement that fee increases for the next 5 years would increase in step with CPI
• An agreement not to change the rate methodology adopted in 2016. Ratio to dock rate remains at 11 %.

• Agreement that ALL mooring permits, including those controlled by Yacht Clubs, will be subject to the same increases at the same time
• Agreement to improve in -the -water dinghy dock access for mooring permittees We would like to reiterate that transferability does not translate to profit. Removing transferability unfairly targets mooring permittees and can be viewed as discrimination, since other tidelands users, including homeowners with pier permits, may transfer their permits. Additionally, it is well established that other tidelands users do profit from the use of public tidelands (fuel docks, yacht clubs, etc). We don't have an issue with this, but we do not wish to be treated differently.

We appreciate that the city is considering alternative plans. The NIVIA's option would begin generating additional revenue for the city within the year, without the responsibility of taking over the moorings, as opposed to the City staff's program which would see stalled income on mooring permits not transferred.

In summary, we believe maintaining the status quo for mooring permits has benefits for the city:

The City can continue to collect transfer fees
The City can continue to collect monthly fees
The City has no financial responsibility for maintaining moorings The City can continue to reassess mooring rates
Adjusting current rates can improve income with no cost to the City The city can build and maintain a positive relationship with mooring holders We look forward to connecting with you on this issue moving forward.

Sincerely,
Anne Stenton
President, Newport Mooring Association
[email protected]
(949) 872-9415

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: July 09, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Attachments: Newport Mooring Rate Comment Letter.docx.pdf From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:00:29 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Leung, Grace ; Harp, Aaron ; Wooding, Lauren

Subject: FW: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal
Sent: July 09, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Re: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Hi Jaime,
I've attached the Coastal Commission's comment Letter in response to the proposed action on the Newport Beach Mooring Rates. Please Let me know if you have questions or issues opening the PDF.

Thanks so much for giving us the opportunity to submit comments.

Amrita Spencer I District Manager

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 Ocean Blvd. Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
1 From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Re: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Good evening Jaime,
Just wanted to let you know that our staff is fin a lizingourcom me nt letter forth e mooring rates. We wiLl. have that sent over tonight or first thing tomorrow morning. Thanks.

Amrita Spencer I District Manager

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 Ocean Blvd. Suite 300
Long Beach, CA
90802
(562) S90-5071
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 3:21 PM
To: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal
Subject: RE: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
Typically the reports go out Friday the week before the meeting (July 5th). But given the holiday, we are trying to get the reports done early. There is a stight chance they get released on July V, but not positive.

From: Spencer, Amrita@Coastal
Sent: June 19, 2024 4:52 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: July 9 meeting for Mooring Rates
RNAL EMAIL) DO NoT CUCK links or attachments unlessyou recognize the sender and knowthe qqp��!jtf�� safe.. .

Hi again Jaime,
Sorry for the muttipLe emaiLs. I wanted to fol.Low up with you on a separate thread about the mooring rates issue. I was wondering whether you might be abLe to share when the staff recommendation for rates might be posted for pubLic comment? I want to make sure that we submit our response in a timeLy manner for the City's consideration.

Thanks,

Amrita Spencer I District Supervisor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast District Office
301 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GoVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E. OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 300
LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4325
VOICE (562) 590-5071
July 9, 2024
City of Newport Beach
Attn: Seimone Jurjis
100 Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[email protected]
Re: Concerns About The City of Newport Beach's Proposed Mooring Rental Rate Increase in Newport Harbor
Dear Mr. Jurjis,
I am writing to you regarding the City of Newport Beach's ("City") proposed mooring rental rate increase in Newport Harbor, as recommended by the Newport Harbor Commission ("Harbor Commission") on April 10, 2024. Several members of the public, specifically mooring permittees, have expressed concerns to Coastal Commission ("Commission") staff regarding the proposed rate increase. Since Commission staff became aware of these concerns, we have met with the City, Newport Mooring Association, and State Lands Commission to gain a deeper understanding of the basis of the proposed rate increase. As a result, Commission staff recommend that the City delay implementation of any mooring rental rate increase to allow more time to consider these concerns, including those raised below.

Fee Discrepancy
The Harbor Commission's current recommendation proposes an increase to both onshore and offshore mooring rental rates to charge fair market rent', noting that these rates were last updated in 2016, which have been adjusted annually by the lesser of 2% or the change in the cost of living pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Currently, rental rates are set at $1.67 per lineal foot per month for onshore moorings, and $3.34 per lineal foot per month for offshore moorings. The recommended increase for a 40-foot offshore mooring, the most common of moorings in Newport Harbor, would increase from $3.34 per lineal foot per month to $12.02 over a more than five-year period. This represents an approximately 360% increase in rental rates. Simultaneously, the City informed Commission staff that similar to mooring rental rates, private slip rental rates are also not consistent with fair market rent. However, no rental rate increase has been proposed to adjust private slip rental rates at this time.

Commission staff are concerned that the discrepancy between mooring rental rates and private slip rental rates may impose unequitable access to recreational boating in 1 Commission staff were informed from the City and State Lands Commission that the City is required to charge fair market rental rates for both moorings and private slips. In a letter to the City dated April 9, 2024, State Lands Commission noted that charging less than fair market rates for the use and occupation of granted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift of public trust funds.

Newport Harbor. Given this concern, Commission staff recommend that the City analyze the fair market rent rate for private slips and develop a proposal to simultaneously implement the updated rental rates for both moorings and private slips to resolve this discrepancy and ensure equitable access to recreational boating activities in Newport Harbor.

Equitable Access Program
The Harbor Commission's proposed rental rate increase of approximately 360% over a more than five-year period may impose financial hardship on some mooring permittees.

This additionally may result in unequitable access to recreational boating in Newport Harbor for individuals who are unable to afford the increased rates. The Harbor Commission's recommendation identifies a phased approach beginning on January 1, 2025, including six proportionate increases over nearly a six -year period. Furthermore, the City's staff report dated July 9, 2024 proposes an alternative recommendation to the Harbor Commission's, which would allow existing permittees to maintain their current rates, subject to annual CPI adjustments.

While Commission staff support phased implementation in an effort to mitigate financial hardship for existing permit holders, this approach does not fully address concerns about the financial burden associated with holding a permit and ensuring equitable access to the Harbor. To address this concern, Commission staff recommend that the City consider the feasibility of a program to support equitable access to recreational boating in Newport Harbor by low-income individuals.

Permit Transfers
In addition to concerns related to the proposed rental rate increase, Commission staff are concerned that the private sale/transfer of permits further impedes access to recreational boating in Newport Harbor for all people. More specifically, this structure creates a significant cost to entry. According to the City's records, the price paid for 16 mooring permit sales in 2024 (ranging from 18 feet to 50 feet) ranged between $20,000 and $55,000. Furthermore, this structure also allows the transfer of mooring permits to friends and family in perpetuity. This imposes a barrier to entry given mooring permits may be held and transferred among friends and family, thus restricting the entry of new users. Commission staff note the City's staff report identifies at least one method to address this issue and are encouraged the City is considering ways to reduce barriers to entry in order to expand access to more users.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Commission staff remain committed to supporting the City to ensure equitable access to recreational boating in Newport Harbor.

Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:

D781AF30CEOC4F5
Amrita Spencer
District Manager
California Coastal Commission
cc: Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, CCC
Karl Schwing, Deputy Director, South Coast District- OC,CCC Shannon Vaughn, District Manager, CCC
Jeffrey Palm, Coastal Program Analyst, CCC

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: J u ly 09, 2024 1:04 P M
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:04:11 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: O'Neill, William ; Kleiman, Lauren ; Blom, Noah
; Grant, Robyn ; Weigand, Erik
; Avery, Brad ; Stapleton, Joe

Cc: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Written Comment on Agenda Item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council Meeting July 9th, 2024 As a Newport Harbor offshore mooring holder for more than thirty-five years, I have been amazed to read the arguments made by the appraiser trying to support his conclusion that offshore mooring fees should be equivalent to, or even greater, than dock slip rates charged by marinas in Newport Harbor.

The issue appears to be moving rapidly towards litigation. I am hopeful sanity prevails on the part of the City Council, and hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars will not be wasted on legal fees trying to justify a position that is clearly nonsensical.

You don't have to be a boater to quickly realize that in a free market system, mooring fees have to be far less than slip rentals to compensate for the great disparity in conditions. A quick comparison of the huge differences in the boating experience of someone with a boat at a shoreside dock vs an offshore mooring proves the point.

Marinas offer parking, restrooms, fresh water for both drinking and boat wash -downs, and electricit to power on board systems, including refrigeration. None of that is available to mooring holders.

Think for a moment what it is like to have a boat on an offshore mooring. To begin with, when you want to go to your boat you can't walk, ride your bike, or take any type of vehicle you may choose.

You must have a vehicle that permits you to carry a dingy, so you can get from the shore to your boat. Then you have to load your dingy onto your vehicle, travel to the general area of your mooring and look for a parking space, which if you are not lucky can take considerable time and may not be close to where your dingy can be launched for transport to your moored boat. Then you have to move your dingy to the launch point and row to your mooring.

Washing the boat to remove bird droppings is a constant need, and on a mooring can be physically exhausting. Unlike a marina, there is no endless supply of water coming through a hose with a high pressure nozzle, so droppings can be blasted away. Wash water on a mooring comes from bucket after bucket manually hauled from the bay up to the deck using a hand line. The pressure to remove

the bird droppings doesn't come from a high-pressure nozzle, but by manual scrubbing with a deck brush.

The same big disparity exists when it comes to the availability of electricity. At a marina, slip electricity is always available to power an onboard lighting, a refrigerator, television, computer and any of the various electrical ly-powered appliances and tools we use so often. On a mooring, electrical needs must be met by onboard generator or charging the onboard batteries by running the main engine.

Solar power isn't a realistic option, since most boats don't have the deck space to permanently mount an adequate number of solar panels to provide significant electrical generation.

Offshore mooring rates should continue to be assessed as a small percentage of the average of marina dock fees for a similar boat size. This seems reasonable and acknowledges the differences between the two, as referenced above. To argue that somehow keeping a boat on an offshore mooring should be the same or more than keeping a boat at a slip in a marina is crazy talk and cannot be defended.

In terms of transferability, mooring holders must be able to sell their boats and transfer their mooring interest. Likewise, they must be able to transfer the boat title and mooring interest to a family member.

Thank you! —
Dale Falasco
Property Owner/Offshore Mooring Holder
243 Ocean View Ave.

Newport Beach

Mulvey, Jennifer
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: July 09, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Written Comment on Agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024 Attachments: CBRE Appraisal - Offshore Mooring Fields 2024.pdf, variance report with note added July 9.pdf
From: Admin
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 12:39:07 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council
Cc: City Clerk's Office
Subject: Re: Written Comment on Agenda item #13 (Mooring Rates) City Council July 9, 2024 1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is saf Dear Mayor O'NeiLL and Esteemed City Council Members,
Attached are some materia Is you may find informative regarding the mooring rate issue on the agenda for tonight. We appreciate the time and effort it takes to consider these issues and welcome an opportunity to discuss this information with you at a future date.

Item #11: Independently commissioned CBRE appraisal
(Indicates existing mooring rates are in line with fair market mooring rates) Item #2: Variance Report
(Indicates significant variance in City's appraisal from 2016 vs 2023 relative to mooring rates) RespectfulLy,
Newport Mooring Association

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
rl
L
6AZM-
APPftAISAL
REPORT

NEWPORT HARBOR OFFSHORE MOORING FIELDS -

TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES

NEWPORT HARBOR
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92662
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.

CBRE

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
CBRE
February 12, 2024
Mr. L. Scott Karlin
Policy and Legal Affairs on behalf of Newport Mooring Association, Inc.

NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.

P.O. Box 1118
Newport Beach, California 92659
RE: Appraisal of: Newport Harbor Offshore Mooring Fields - Tidelands Fair Use Fees Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Karlin:

At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the market rental value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report.

The subject property consists of the State-owned State of California Tidelands submerged in Newport Harbor that are currently utilized to accommodate individual offshore moorings. The Tidelands are currently held in Trust by the City of Newport Beach. There are approximately 740 offshore moorings, approximately 579 of which are In mooring fields A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J and K, and which excludes approximately 79 moorings in the Balboa Yacht Club mooring field and 73 moorings in the Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field which are not administrated by the City. The Harbor Patrol also has 6 moorings.

Although requested, updated precise sourced detailed information including the exact number of moorings, intended boat length for each mooring, and the amount of tidelands encumbered or utilized within each mooring field for use by individual moorings was not available. We have estimated / filled in any missing data and figures based on available information including mooring area maps, 6 years of detailed mooring transfer logs, Landvision aerial measuring tool, and calculations based on typical vessel sizes and mooring equipment. From these resources we have estimated 579 moorings in 9 mooring fields ranging from 18 moorings to 133 moorings, with average intended boat lengths ranging from 40' to 50' and average beam (width) of 15 feet, each of which is extended on average 12 feet from the boat to the buoy at the bow, and 12 feet from the stern to the stern buoy. In the case of mooring using only one buoy, the extra area at the stern would not be added. The mooring fields within which the individual moorings are located comprise lust over 82 acres of tidelands. Note that we independently estimated the area of the mooring fields with an aerial measuring tool which indicated actual mooring fields of around 73 acres; however, the Harbor Depa rtment-provided -data was relied upon for the purposes of the appraisal, despite being unsourced. The areas within the mooring fields outside the areas occupied by, or which could be occupied by a vessel on the individual moorings is not an area used exclusively by the owners of vessels on the individual moorings.

These areas are generally used by the public inclusive of kayakers, paddle boarders, small craft (9 2024 CBRE, Inc.

Mr. L. Scott Karlin
February 12, 2024

Page 2 ends

Newport Beach City CouncilJuly 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
July 9, 2024