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

such as Duffy Boats, as well as the occasional use by the owner of a vessel using a tender to access an individual mooring.

Our analysis is of the tidelands used by the individual moorings within the mooring fields. Actual fees or fair market rent would vary from mooring to mooring. For example, a mooring on the perimeter of a moorings field would have superior unobstructed views, easier access, and/or mooring fields are closer to the harbor entrance, etc. This, however, is offset by a generally inferior mooring which may be very far from the harbor entrance, have difficult or crowded access, be located near a gas dock or a "louder" area in the harbor, etc. Accordingly, for this assignment, and in order to provide as balanced and equitable an analysis of the tidelands in a harbor -wide context as possible, we based the valuation of market rent for the subject tidelands upon a "typical" mooring.

Based on the analysis contained in the following report, and certain assumptions based on the typical area of tidelands used by a vessel on a mooring, and the lack of additional services or areas of tidelands available to mooring holders to access these moorings, the market value of the subject is concluded as follows:

TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES / FAIR MARKET RENT
Annual Rent per 40'
Mooring Based on
Market Rent / Lineal Foot 1,326SF of Tidelands
YR for Tidelands used for individual
Appraisal Premise Date of Value ($3.36 LF per mo) mooring As Is January 15, 2024 $41.00 $1,640
Compiled by CBRE
Summary Table — Various Size Moorings
Mooring Size
Sq Ft with
AnnualFee
AnnualFee
AnnualFee
Max Swing
Per Lineal
Based on Sq
Per Lineal Foot
Factor
Foot
Ft Tidelands
(rounded to full
(rounded to
(without
dollar)
full dollar)
Rounding)
30 843
$35
$1,045.32
$1,050
40 1,326
$41
$1,644.24
$1,640
50 1,857
$46
$2,302.68
$2,300
60 2,322
$48
$2,879.28
$2,880
70 2,840
$50
$3,521.60
$3,500
If the City was to provide additional services to provide access to the moorings (such as shore boat service) or set aside areas of the tidelands for reasonable access to the moorings (such as in water motorized dinghy/tender boat dockage), an adjustment in the value may be appropriate, F, ZIml=
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-223

Mr. L. Scott Karlin
February 12, 2024

Page 3 ends

depending on the nature and extent of such additional services or additional tideland used for such access.

The report, in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of, and inseparable from, this letter.

The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.

The intended use and user of our report are specifically identified in our report as agreed upon in our contract for services and/or reliance language found in the report. As a condition to being granted the status of an intended user, any intended user who has not entered into a written agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of our report agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the client who ordered the report. No other use or user of the report is permitted by any other party for any other purpose. Dissemination of this report by any party to any non -intended users does not extend reliance to any such party, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unauthorized use of or reliance upon the report, its conclusions or contents (or any portion thereof).

It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,

CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
Robert Jacobson, MAI
Executive Vice President
California State Certification No. AG035731
Expiration Date: July 7, 2025
F" ZIml=
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-224

Certification
Certification
We certify to the best of our knowledge and belief:
1 . The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in or bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest in or bias with respect to the parties involved with this assignment.

4. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

5. Our compensation for completing this assignment Is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

6. This appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.

7. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the 2024 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as well as the requirements of the State of California.

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

9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

10. As of the date of this report, Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute.

11. Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

12. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report.

13. Valuation & Advisory Services operates as an independent economic entity within CBRE, Inc.

Although employees of other CBRE, Inc. divisions may be contacted as a part of our routine market research investigations, absolute client confidentiality and privacy were maintained at all times with regard to this assignment without conflict of interest.

14. Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI has not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

Robert Jacobson, MAI
California State Certification No. AG03573
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. I CBRE
13-225

Harbor Map
Pump 14 Don't Daup N
r,,, 7)
L/Ad
'l=P0vt Na� A�v
rw.w 10,
P—p—t st.ti
P.bli, D-k
F4N,y CIOSSI"

MAP OF NEWPORT HARBOR AND MOORING FIELDS
City of Newport Beach
5 TA 11
0 ACM
VRNONG

SAS I N
6C,
COA�YT-11

NEWPORT

FASHION
DVNfS
I INDA
Ls
St
HARBOR
fSLAND
Am
,ichcir5ge CO L L iN S ill
i5tAND

NEWPORT
PIER
Newport Harbor is a No -Wake Harbor!
TheSpeedLrmj(is5rnph
Upper and Lower Newport Bay am No Discharge Zones.

Dumping tma ted and un treated boat gewage Is N�ega;
Warningi Underwater subm"od Unas -
Do not cross through mooring area�.

Harbor Related Contact Informatlom
Cj�
A
A
SALOCA SALI59A 91,V E
Clly of Nawport Beach Harbor Mastar, 949-270-8159 1—argoncy: Gajj 9-1-1 or VH F Radio Channel I 9A
Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrali 949-723-1002 or VHF Radio Ch. 16 Hoag Hospital; M-7e4-024 W F, Beach Lifequarciz 949-644-aO47 Sea Tow: 562-592-2806 or VHF Ch. 16 x ".1.W.por,1L Bh Fire D.jprjnt: q4q-1344-�511 p, 911 TowFoal US! 949-27J3-3207 or VHF Ch- 10 + 24 Hr- Crime Tip Hot Line: 800-55"273 THF
U�; Coast Guard- M0-521 -50DO or VHF Radio Charir�l 16 off shure WEDGE M Oil Ch.-il.ndS ... ge Spill. Newport Beach Weather. 949-675-G503 0 OAS a 6 Call Both IN . rrb.rg V1116a
Califorkiia Office of Emergency Response; (SM) OILS911 (645-7911) ml, - 1.302 r-t Nationa I Re%poose Center: (800) 424-88,02
NqwpW Dunes Launch Ramp Info: Mtp:il www.dbw.ca.qoylBoafinqFacil� iesiDetailsf997 9 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
VC
CORONA
13-226

Moorina Field A from west
Mooring Field C from west
Moorinq Field B from west
Moorina Field A from east
Moorinq Field C from east
Moorinq Field G from north
=11=

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Property Name
Location
Client
Highest and Best Use
As If Vacant
As Improved
Property Rights Appraised
Date of Report
Date of Inspection
Submerged Tidelands Area
Mooring Fields
Moorings
Utilized Average Mooring Size
Concluded Tidelands SF / Lineal Boat Mooring Size
Tidelands Attributable / 40' Boat

VALUATION
Newport Harbor Offshore Mooring Fields - Tidelands
Fair Use Fees
Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, Orange County, CA
92662
Newport Mooring Association, Inc.

Offshore Mooring Use
Offshore Mooring Use
Leased Fee Interest
January 31, 2024
January 15, 2024

81.583 AC
9 579
40'
33 SF
1,326 SF
Rent Per Year
Market Rent As Is On January 15, 2024
California State Tidelands Commission Methodology $1,613 Inflation Methodology Based on City's Prior Benchmark $1,670 Ratio Method $1,920
3,553,765 SF

TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES / FAIR MARKET RENT
Market Rent / Lineal Annual Rent per 40'
Foot / YR for Mooring Based on 1,326SF
Tidelands of Tidelands used for
Appraisal Premise Date of Value ($3.36 LF per mo) individual mooring As Is January 15, 2024 $41.00 $1,640
Compiled by CBRE
(�) 2024 CBRE, Inc.

Ir :1�1=
13-228

Executive Summary
Market Rates for Moorings - Other Sizes
Based on Methodologies Used in This Report the Value per Square Foot is $1.24 per Square Foot of Tidelands Used Per Annum. The square foot valuation would not change in relation to the size of mooring, only the square foot used and resulting adjustment to the total rate would change.

Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30 +
24 x
12 648
40 +
28 x
15 1,020
50 +
34 x
17 1,428
60 +
34 X
19 1,786
70 +
34 x
21 2,184
Rates without a Swing Factor
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
Total Sq Ft
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
X
648
$803.52
$26.79
40 1,020
X
1,020
$1,264.80
$31.62
50 1,428
X
1,428
$1,770.72
$35.42
60 1 1,786
1 X
1,786
$2,214.64
$36.91
70 1 2,184
1 x
2,184
$2,708.16
$38.69
Add Swinq Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
778
$964.72
$32.16
40 1,020
x
1,224
$1,517.76
$37.95
50 1,428
x
1,714
$2,125.36
$42.51
60 1,786
x
2,144
$2,658.56
$44.31
70 2,184
X
2,621
$3,250.04
$46.43
Add Swina Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
810
$1,004.40
$33.48
40 1020
X
1,275
$1,581.00
$39.53
50 1428
x
1,785
$2,213.40
$44.27
60 1 1786
1 X
2,233
$2,768.92
$46.15
70 1 2184
1 x
2,730
$3,385.20
$48.36
iv
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-229

Executive Summary
Add Swina Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
X
843
$1,045.32
$34.85
40 1,020
X
1,326
$1,644.24
$41.11
50 1,428
X
1,857
$2,302.68
$46.06
60 1,786
X
2,322
$2,879.28
$47.99
70 2,184
X
2,840
$3,521.60
$50.31
* Variations with Summary results from rounding square foot calculations. @ 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-230

Executive Summary

MARKET VOLATILITY
We draw your attention to a combination of inflationary pressures (leading to higher interest rates) and recent failures/stress in banking systems which have significantly increased the potential for constrained credit markets, negative capital value movements and enhanced volatility in property markets over the short -to -medium term.

Experience has shown that consumer and investor behavior can quickly change during periods of such heightened volatility. Lending or investment decisions should reflect this heightened level of volatility and the potential for deteriorating market conditions.

It is important to note that the conclusions set out in this report are valid as at the valuation date only. Where appropriate, we recommend that the valuation is closely monitored, as we continue to track how markets respond to evolving events.

CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
At its December 2023 meeting, the Federal Reserve held the federal funds rate at a range of

5.25% to 5.50% and indicated it will continue reducing its balance sheet by $95 billion per month. The Fed reaffirmed its commitment to lowering inflation to its 2.00% target, while also acknowledging that risks (inflation vs. growth) have become more balanced.

Despite headline inflation remaining above the Fed's 2.00% target, core inflation, which excludes food and energy prices, has steadily decreased over the past 12 months. The recent run-up in the 1 0-year Treasury yield has further tightened financial conditions, which will continue to suppress economic growth and inflation. Commercial real estate investment activity is unlikely to improve until capital sources are confident that interest rates have stabilized, and pricing has fully adjusted.

While opinions vary on future economic issues, the general market consensus at the time of this appraisal is the anticipation of moderating inflation as higher interest rates cool demand. Tighter lending conditions and a weakening economy will keep capital markets activity subdued and reduce leasing demand in the short to medium term. Amid this uncertain and dynamic environment, investment market performance will be uneven across property types.

Local Impact
Note that while Newport Beach Harbor and its users are somewhat uniquely more insulated from broader changes in prevailing economic conditions due to the level of affluence surrounding the area and harbor, current economics and market fundamentals of harbor -related operations were artificially turbocharged due to the COVID-1 9 lockdowns and restrictions set forth by government throughout California. The lockdowns spurred boat usage and harbor demand in dramatic fashion during 2020 and 2021. As will be illustrated in the market analysis section, this artificial demand has waned with the COVID- 19 pandemic, lockdowns, and operation restrictions behind (9 2024 CBRE, Inc. Vi CBRE
13-231

Executive Summary
us, there is market evidence of a contraction in the boating market. In addition, we are currently facing unprecedented economic headwinds with the Fed raising rates over 500 basis points since April 2022, which historically has never been seen. This is intended and is anticipated to U unwind" much of the (again artificially imposed) COVID-19 pandemic era inflationary gains (increases in market rent and compression of rates of return).

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS
An extraordinary assumption is defined as "an assignment -specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions." '
0 We have utilized the number of moorings, intended / assigned lineal foot capacity per mooring, and the amount of tidelands attributable to each mooring field based on multiple sources, the primary of which was the Newport Harbor Department mooring summary sheet.

This summary sheet was provided by the Harbor Department but was unsourced. Although requested, a full detailed comprehensive list of this information including actual surveyed tidelands areas was not provided / available. Also of importance but which was not available is the intended lineal boat capacity for each mooring. The appraiser is not a licensed surveyor. It 'is recommended that a professional tidelands survey be performed by a certified licensed surveyor and reliable source for all / average lineal foot mooring capacity for the mooring fields in question prior to making a business decision. The appraiser has made his best effort to accurately estimate these figures as relied upon in the following analysis. We reserve the right to amend our opinion of fair market rent if actual encumbered tidelands areas and lineal boat capacities vary from those figures utilized in the appraisal.

The use of extraordinary assumptions might have affected assignment results.

HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS
A hypothetical condition is defined as "a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purposes of analysis." ' 0 None noted

OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY HISTORY
Title to the subject tidelands is currently vested in the State of California, in Trust to the City of Newport Beach.

To the best of our knowledge, there has been no ownership transfer of the property during the previous three years, nor any other marketing activity of unsolicited offers, and the subject is not currently listed for or pending sale.
1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024
2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2024
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. Vii CBRE
13-232

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Certification......................................................................................................................... i ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................. iii
Tableof Contents .............................................................................................................. viii
Scopeof Work ..................................................................................................................... 1 NeighborhoodAnalysis ....................................................................................................... 9 SubjectAnalysis ................................................................................................................ 10 Zoning.............................................................................................................................. 13 MarketAnalysis ................................................................................................................. 14 Highestand Best Use ........................................................................................................ 16 Fair Market Rent Analysis .................................................................................................. 17 Reconciliation of Market Rent ............................................................................................ 31 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ................................................................................ 33 ADDENDA
A General Data
B Appraiser License
Viii
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-233

Scope of Work
Scope of Work
This Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2 of USPAP. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data are gathered, and analysis is applied.

INTENDED USE OF REPORT
This appraisal is to be used for internal purposes related to discussions with the governing authority regarding increasing fees payable by mooring owners, and no other use is permitted.

CLIENT
The client is Newport Mooring Association, Inc.

INTENDED USER OF REPORT
This appraisal Is to be used by Newport Mooring Association, Inc., and no other user may rely on our report unless as specifically indicated in the report.

Intended Users - the intended user is the person (or entity) who the appraiser intends will use the results of the appraisal. The client may provide the appraiser with information about other potential users of the appraisal, but the appraiser ultimately determines who the appropriate users are given the appraisal problem to be solved.

Identifying the intended users is necessary so that the appraiser can report the opinions and conclusions developed in the appraisal in a manner that is clear and understandable to the intended users. Parties who receive or might receive a copy of the appraisal are not necessarily intended users. The appraiser's responsibility is to the intended users identified in the report, not to all readers of the appraisal report. '

PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate fair use fees / fair market rent for the subject property.

DEFINITION OF VALUE
There is no specific definition of Fair Market Rent. However, Market Rent is considered to be synonymous with Fair Market Rent for the purpose of this appraisal. Fair Market Rent is defined in the Sixth Edition (2015) of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as: "The most probable rent that a property should bring in a competitive and open market reflecting the conditions and restrictions of a specified lease agreement, including the rental adjustment and revaluation, permitted uses, use restrictions, expense obligations, term, concessions, renewal and purchase options, and tenant improvements (Tls)."
3 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, I 4th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), 50. (9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-234

Scope of Work

INTEREST APPRAISED
The value estimated represents fair market rent, not an ownership interest such as fee simple or leased fee. Therefore, the concept of ownership interest is not applicable in this assignment.

Extent to Which the Property is Identified
The property is identified through the following sources:
• various mapping software and records
• physical inspection
Extent to Which the Property is Inspected
We inspected the subject property as well as the surrounding environs on the effective date of the appraisal. The inspection included various aerial and mapping resources, as well as a physical inspection around and throughout the harbor.

Type and Extent of the Data Researched
CBRE reviewed the following:
• various public resources
• comparable data
previous market studies and appraisals
Type and Extent of Analysis Applied
CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value. The steps required to complete each approach are discussed in the methodology section.

K
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.

F, :1�1=
13-235

Scope of Work
Data Resources Utilized in the Analysis

DATA SOURCES
Item: Source(s):

Subject Encumbered Tidelands Area Information Provided by Newport Harbor Department, LanclVision Aerial Measuring Tool
Number of Moorings Information Provided by Newport Harbor Department (indicates 6 more moorings than the mooring field harbor maps)
Mooring Capacity / Lineal Boat Feet Public Record Mooring Transfer Logs June 2017 thru October 2022, per Mooring Field LanclVision Aerial Measuring Tool
Compiled by CBRE

APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY
In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available.

METHODOLOGY APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT
In performing our market rental analysis, we have performed a rent comparable or paired rent analysis for available harbors in California that offer both slip and mooring options for boaters.

These harbors are in San Diego, Morro Bay, Monterey Bay/Santa Cruz, and Half Moon Bay. We have incorporated this methodology into the market standard State of California employed methodology described below.

The Benchmark analysis is employed consistently throughout California by the California State Lands Commission. This is a common practice utilizing benchmarks which are used to establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, mostly private recreational improvements within the Commission's jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5).) Within this analysis, it will be necessary to determine what income can typically be generated by a commercial marina / typical boat slip; the area occupied by a mooring in a well -designed harbor; what the rental charge would be for a typical sized boat; and the rate of return the state should receive for the use of its land. The "Commission typically charges 5% to 6% of gross income for boat berthing for sites leased to commercial marina operators, with most of the leases set at 5% of gross income." (Tamales Bay Berths and Buoys benchmark rates Staff Report 28). We note that the City of Newport Beach has used rates as high as 8.5% of rents received by Newport Harbor marinas to establish the fair rental value of the tidelands in relation to the largest marinas in Newport Harbor and less in relation to smaller marinas and other uses. This is set forth in the comprehensive Appraisal Report of the valuation of fees to be charged for use of tideland for all uses of the tidelands in Newport Harbor adopted by the City of Newport Beach and published in 2016 and 2017 in two separate reports b George Hamiton Jones report which can be found at:
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 3 CBRE
13-236

Scope of Work
https:Harchive.newportbeachIibrary.org/NBPL/DocView.aspx?id= 1263772 &dbid=O&repo=CNl3&cr= 1
The Phase 1 report of George Hamiton Jones concerned a particular marina, and the Phase 2 report, which incorporated the methodology of the prior report concerned all commercial uses as well as other uses. It is noteworthy that some offshore moorings are used for approved commercial uses and as such fall under the George Hamiton Jones appraisal under other uses, and offshore moorings used for recreations use would also fall under "other uses", using a reasonable interpretation of the George Hamiton Jones appraisal. The rates in the George Hamiton Jones report were adopted by the City of Newport Beach, and then published and updated annually with increases. The current published rates can be found at the following link:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/harbor- cha rges/com mercia I -tidela nds- permits -a nd -leases The City's published rates for, in effect, all uses except for homeowner docks, but which includes HOA (homeowner association docks when rented out by the HOA) shown in the link above are as follows:

The following rates are effective March 1, 2022 through February 29, 2024:
4 (9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
r =1�1=
13-237

Scope of Work
Annual Rental Rate Annual Rental Rate
Commercial Use Category* (Per SF) (Per SF)
3/1/22 - 2/28/23 3/1/23 - 2/29/24
Large Commercial Marinas
$1.34
$1.42
Medium Commercial Marinas
$1.02
$1.08
Small Commercial Marinas
$0.88
$0.93
Shipyards
$0.42
$0.45
HOA Marinas/Docks for Non-
members' Use
> 30,000 SF
$1.34
$1.42
13,000 SF to 30,000 SF
$1.02
$1.08
< 13,000 SF
$0.88
$0.93
Yacht Club Guest Slips
$0.42
$0.45
Vessel Rental Facility (Boat Rentals)
$0.88
$0.93
Sport Fishing Charters
$0.88
$0.93
Restaurants' Guest Slips
$0.42
$0.45
Vessel Charters
$0.88
$0.93
Fuel Docks
$0.88
$0.93
All Others
$0.88
$0.93
* The Annual Rental Rate for commercial tidelands being used as Fuel Docks can be calculated one of three ways, per City Council Resolution No. 2018-09. The table above reflects the base rent only calculation option.

Beginning on March 1, 2019, annual rental rates may be adlusted on the first day of March each Permit/Lease year to reflect an Increase in the cost of living, as indicated by the Consumer Price Index. Additional information regarding rental rates can be found in City Council Resolution No. 2017-49 and No. 2018-09.

As discussed below, the estimated square foot of tidelands used by a 40-foot offshore mooring Is 1,326 square feet. That is the same for a commercial offshore mooring as well as a recreational (9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 5 CBRE
13-238

Scope of Work
offshore mooring. Using the "Other Uses" published by the City and based on the square feet of tidelands used, the rate would be $0.93 per annum, which is $1,233 per year.

While this rate Is materially lower than the rate found in this report, it does show that the current rates charged for offshore moorings is, and has been significantly higher than what the City is charging and has been charging for almost all other uses of the tidelands, namely $1.16 per square foot of tidelands used per annum based on an estimated 1,326 square feet of tidelands used for a 40 foot vessel.

We have also estimated current fair market rent for the subject by utilizing various measures of inflation and applying an appropriate level of inflation to the City's previously adopted Fair Use Fee / Market Rent on which today's fees are based. The City's adopted rate of $35 per lineal foot in 2016 with annual CPI adjustments subject to a cap, was based on an appraisal by Netzer and Associates as hired by the City. The City's appraiser Mr. Netzer concluded a range from $32 to $38 per lineal foot and the City adopted $35 per lineal foot per year. As such, it is concluded that Netzer's 2015/2016 appraisal was reflective of market as adopted by the City, and again as hired by the City of Newport Beach.

Presumably, the City were aware of the George Hamiton Jones report of the same year, which is also taken into account when adjusting the base values to information available regarding market conditions.

Of material consideration throughout the report and analysis, in contrast to all other surveyed facilities in the appraisal, marinas with slips and / or moorings, which all provide ready access, such as extensive permanent dinghy docks where a motorized dinghy/tender is available 24/7 by to provide access to the moorings, Newport Harbor has exceedingly poor / grossly inadequate public accessibility (harbor proximate dinghy storage or comparable) and amenities that serve the mooring fields. The additional cost to obtain similar motorized in water dinghy/tender dock space in Newport Beach is a malor and necessary adjustment which needs to be taken into account. Put simply, a mooring without easy access has greatly diminished value. This will be discussed in detail throughout the report. Mooring access is a free City -provided service in the harbors of San Diego, Morro Bay, and Monterey and other Harbors that have off -shore moorings.

What follows is a Table of Rates (Implied Subject mooring / tidelands market Rates) that are based on rates published by the City for 2024, using the Small Marina and Other Use Sq Ft rate of $0.93 per annurn per Sq Ft.
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc. 6 CBRE
13-239

Scope of Work
Rates Per Annum
Using City's 2024 Small Marina and Other Use Rates Based on Sq Ft of Tidelands Tidelands Used without Swing Factor
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Scl Ft
30 +
24 x
12 648
40 +
28 x
15 1,020
50 +
34 x
17 1,428
60 +
34 x
19 1,786
70 34
x
21 2,184
Rates Based on Tidelands Used with No Swing Factor
Small Marina
/Other Use
Rate
Boat Size
Total Sq Ft with lines etc
Fee Per Year
at $.93 sq ft
$0.93
30 648
$602.64
$0.93
40 1,020
$948.60
$0.93
50 1,428
$1,328.04
$0.93
60 1,786
$1,660.98
$0.93
70 2,184
$2,031.12
Rates Adding a Swing Factor of 20%
Boat Size
Scl Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Tota I Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30 648
x
778
$723.54
40 1,020
x
1,224
$1,138.32
50 1,428
x
1,714
$1,594.02
60 1,786
x
2,144
$1,993.92
70 2,184
x
2,621
$2,437.53
Rates Adding a Swing Factor of 25%
Boat Size
Scl Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30 648
x
810
$744.93
40 1,020
x
1,275
$1,185.75
50 1,428
x
1,785
$1,660.05
60 1,786
x
2,233
$2,076.69
70 2,184
x
2,730
$2,538.90
C) 2024 CBRE, Inc.

L Im
A =1 �1
13-240

Scope of Work
Rates Addina a Swina Factor of 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $0.93 sq ft
30 648
x
843
$783.99
40 1,020
x
1,326
$1,233.18
50 1,428
x
1,857
$1,727.01
60 1,786
x
2,322
$2,159.46
70 2,184 -
xT
2,840
$2,641.20
9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-241

Neighborhood Analysis
Neighborhood Analysis
NINC
040,
N 0, H
Rd
Newport gay
N.ewport NEWPORT
Beach
CENTER
BALBOA
ISLANO
'k
emcipbox 0 MaphoxQ OpenStrerd 1 1:

The center of recreation in the city is Newport Harbor, which is the largest small boat harbor in the United States. Boating facilities include marinas, docks, slips, moorings, fuel docks and repair and maintenance yards. Also having prominent waterfront locations are many dinner house type restaurants, the exclusive Balboa Bay Club, and many yacht clubs.

Newport Harbor is a premier destination -oriented location where population swells in the summertime with tourism and people with second homes around the harbor. 9 (9 2024 CBRE, Inc.

F, :1�1=
13-242

Subject Analysis
Subject Analysis
The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site.

HARBOR MOORING FIELDS SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
Physical Description
Tidelands Area

81.583 Acres
3,553,765 Sq. Ft.

Moorings
579
Mooring Field A
133

22.148 Acres
964,786 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field B
61 8.430 Acres
367,221 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field C
54 8.857 Acres
385,811 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field D
56 7.329 Acres
319,247 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field F
22 3.326 Acres
144,881 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field G
18 2.345 Acres
102,130 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field H
91 10.531 Acres
458,738 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field J
122

15.44 Acres
672,686 Sq. Ft.

Mooring Field K
22 3.17 Acres
138,265 Sq. Ft.

Source: Various sources compiled by CBRE

DEFINITIONS
Mooring — The term "mooring" shall mean a device consisting of a floating buoy or other object that is secured to the harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel and includes any apparatus used to secure a vessel in Newport Harbor which is not carried aboard such vessel as regular equipment when under way. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code, Chapter 1 7.01.030.J.7.) Mooring Area — The term "mooring area" shall mean an area designated for a group of moorings. (City of Newport Beach, harbor Code, Chapter I 7.01.030.J.8.) Offshore Mooring — The term "offshore mooring" shall mean a mooring that is located bayward of the pierhead line and comprises a single or double buoy, the weight and chain installed for the purpose of berthing a vessel, as provided by Chapter 17.25. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code, Chapter

17.01.0 3 0. L. I .)
Tidelands — The term "tidelands" or "public tidelands" shall mean all lands that were granted to the City by the State of California, including, but not limited to, submerged lands and/or lands that are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide. (City of Newport Beach, Harbor Code, Chapter 17.01.030.P.1.)
Tidelands Utilizedby a Mooring— shall mean that area within a Mooring Area (mooring field) utilized by an individual mooring for the exclusive use of the mooring holder for a vessel which is or could be located on the mooring.

I C
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-243

Subject Analysis
TIDELAND SQUARE FOOTAGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A 40 LINEAL FOOT BOAT MOORING Each mooring holder has the exclusive right to use a certain area of the tidelands and the mooring holder places its own equipment, weights, chain and lines within the small area. For example, a 40 foot mooring would use 40 feet plus 12 feet of line to the front and back buoy on a two buoy mooring, plus 2 feet for each buoy, with a 15 foot beam, plus allowing for a 30% swing factor = 1,326 square feet of tidelands used.

In this example, 33.15 square feet of tidelands would be used per 1 lineal foot of mooring size (1,326SF / 40LF = 33.1 5SF).

Tideland square footage other sizes and swing factor
The added square footage for a "swing factor" is the maximum adjustment for a mooring using two buoys, one off the bow and one off the stern. This has been used as a consideration in establishing rates in other harbors. However, it should be noted that when a boat moves or swings in one direction it opens up tidelands in the place from where it moved / swung from and opens up those tidelands for use by the public, thus the swing factor could reasonably be concluded to be "zero" due to these offsetting factors.

What follows is a Table Square Footage Used for various size boats with and without a swing factor.

Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30 +
24 x
12 648
40 +
28 x
15 1,020
50 +
34 x
17 1,428
60 +
34 x
19 1,786
70 +
34 x
i 21
2,184
Add Swing Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
30 648
x
778
40 1,020
x
1,224
50 1,428
x
1,714
60 1,786
x
2,144
70 2,184
x
2,621
it
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-244

Subject Analysis
Add Swina Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
30 648
x
810
40 1 020
x
1275
50 1,428
x
1785
60 1,786
x
2,233
70 2,184
x
2730
Add Swina Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
30 648
x
843
40 1,020
x
1,326
50 1,428
x
1,857
60 1,786
x
2,32
70 2,184
x
2,840
12 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-245

Market Analysis
Zoning
The subject tidelands are under the regulatory supervision of several entities in addition to the City of Newport Beach. These include the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways, the California Coastal Commission, as well as oversight by the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and others.

Note that City development standards are largely inapplicable to the subject mooring field encumbered tidelands due to the fact that there is no existing or possible *joincler, or operation/utilization of the tidelands in tandem with an uplands property as virtually all other commercial uses along the harbor currently operate.

Given the lack of access, the only way to truly utilize the subject tidelands is for offshore moorings.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 13 CBRE
13-246

Market Analysis
Market Analysis
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandernic and subsequent lockdowns and restrictions on businesses — shopping, dining, etc., there was a surge in demand for alternative recreational or leisure activities. Notable surges included RVIng and Boating. New boat sales reportedly increased 40% during the pandemic. However, note that 95% of recreational boats are lake boats under 26', which are not truly applicable or relevant to the analysis of the moorings within the subject saltwater harbor.

That being said, the surge in demand for boating resulted in an Increase in demand for slips and moorings. Consequently, prices and rents also increased given the relatively fixed supply of marina space. It is difficult to quantify the increase In slip fees year over year; however, as an important distinction marinas owned over the long term with inactive management have been acquired by active competent managers and operators which are able to increase rents by a factor of two or more over the short term. The distinction is that this is not a linear market trend, but instead a realization of mark -to -market rents with short-term rental agreements.

However, it is important to recognize the release of pressure or easing of demand for boating as the COVID-19 pandernic is behind us and people have returned to activities that were not available to them during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. In addition to this, we are currently facing severe economic headwinds and uncertainty due to the unprecedented Fed rate hikes of more than 500 basis points since April of 2022. The already apparent result of this and its economic consequences are detailed in the following:

According to Recreational Boating Statistics published by the NMMA (National Marine Manufactures Association) 2022 report:
o Powerboat sales normalized in 2022, down an estimated 15% to 18% from 2021 to pre -pandemic levels
o 2022 sales and 2023 projections highlight segments driving growth as entry level personal watercraft, freshwater fishing boats, and pontoon boats under 26' These are not market segments that contribute to Newport Harbor, thus indicating a sharper decline in demand for vessels found in Newport Harbor
In summary, a significant easing of demand was widely apparent through 2022 and into 2023.

With all of this being said, despite substantial anticipated headwinds, Newport Harbor remains a highly sought after location, noting that there is increased availability in 2023 and rents have stabilized.

CRC Marinas operates four marinas in Newport Harbor: Balboa Marina, Bayside Marina, Villa Cove Marina, and Bayshore Marina. When surveyed in 2022 they had only five avallabilities. 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 14 CBRE
13-247

Market Analysis
CRC Marinas currently has 11 available slip spaces throughout their Balboa and Bayside Marinas.

CONCLUSION
Overall, the market is in a period of "returning to normalcy" with rents stabilizing and availability increasing. The end of the COVID- 19 pandernic and resultant declining demand for personal recreational watercraft in the face of extreme uncertainty in the current economic climate with materially unsettled / disrupted financial markets is anticipated to at least partially unwind the upward pressure on slip rates observed during 2020 and 2021.

Also, a notable distinction is that per our review of the mooring transfer logs in Newport Harbor from 2017 through 2022, appreciation in pricing of moorings is negligible compared to the increase in the far more rare and highly desirable marina slip rental rates. As such, the increase in slip rents versus the increase In mooring rent Is less than 1 : I . 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 1 E CBRE
13-248

Fair Market Rent Analysis
Highest and Best Use
Per the terms of the assignment, the appraiser is to provide a fair market rent analysis for the subject in its current condition. Determination of highest and best use is beyond the scope of this assignment. That said, given the lack / absence of accessibility to the sublect mooring fields other than by boat, the subject is assumed to be operating to its highest and best use, as mooring fields.
16 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-249

Fair Market Rent Analysis
Fair Market Rent Analysis

METHODOLOGIES
We have employed multiple methodologies in our analyses. All are based on market data relating to a typical mooring or slip intended to accommodate a boat measuring 40 lineal feet.

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION — BENCHMARK TIDELANDS RENT The first methodology employed is consistent with multiple recent Benchmark Tidelands Rental adjustments reports with the following methodology:

In order to determine the value of the leased area (of a pier, buoy, mooring pole, etc.), It will be necessary to determine: what income can typically be generated by a commercial marina; the area occupied by a marina slip in a well -designed marina; what the rental charge would be for a typical sized boat; and the rate of return the State should receive for the use of its land.

We have three recent reports referencing / employing this methodology:
• Southern California Benchmark Memo date May 6, 2022
• San Francisco Bay Area Benchmark Memo date January 18, 2022 • Tornales Bay Benchmark Memo date October 7, 2020
• We also note that the City of Newport Beach has used 8.5% when assessing rates to be charged to companies operating the largest marinas in Newport Harbor but substantially less for smaller marinas and other commercial uses, and have taken that into account as a local benchmark.

This is shown in the 2016 and 2017 George Hamiton Jones Reports utilized by the City for all uses of the tidelands as well as in the City's published rate (link provided above).

As a reference to California State Lands Commission Tornales Bay report PDF page 11:
"The Commission typically charges 5% to 6% of gross income for boat berthing for sites leased to commercial marina operators, with most of the leases set at 5% of gross income."
A rate of return on the income applicable to the Tidelands utilized in each of the three above referenced reports was 5%. We have concluded to the higher rate of 6% given the recent / current inflationary pressures that have resulted in notable rate hikes which are anticipated to remain elevated in the near -term. However, noting that the Fed controls only short-term rates, only a slight adjustment upward from 5% Is appropriate for a long-term normalized rate of return. The complete analysis Is contained on the following pages.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 17 CBRE
13-250

Fair Market Rent Analysis
The following contains a comprehensive rental survey of various marinas throughout Newport Harbor:

NEWPORT BEACH SLIP RENTALS
Average $/ft
Adjusted for
Location
Boat / Slip Length
Average $/ft
Amenities
Average $/month
Lido Yacht Anchorage
40'
$52
$52
$2,080
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina (no amenities)
40'
$50
$63
$2,500
Bayside Village Marina
40'
$41
$41
$1,640
Port Calypso
40'
$44
$44
$1,760
Lido Park Place Marina (no amenities)
40'
$45
$56
$2,250
Marina Park (Based on $88 Nightly Rate)
40'
$66
$66
$2,640
Newport Dunes Resort Marina
40'
$76
$76
$3,040
Mean $52.22 $55.66 $2,226
Median $50.00 $56.25 $2,250
Market Rent Estimate
6% Return Appliable to the tidelands $56 x 0.06 $3.36 AnnualRent 6% of Gross Income Attributable to State Owned Tidelands Annual Fair Rental x 40' boat / slip $134 $1,613 Return = 3.36 per lineal foot per month x 40 x 12 months = $1,613 per year Compiled by CBRE
In the above analysis we did not use the 8.5% used by the City when establishing rates uses per the George Homiton Jones Report for the largest marinas, since the other rates published by the City and adopted by the George Hamilton Jones report for smaller marinas and "other uses" was approximately 1/3 lower, which would result in a rate of approximately 5.67% of the gross revenues charged by marinas, which is a rate very closely aligned with the State Lands Benchmarks.

We have concluded market rent consistent with the mean and median rents indicated by the aggregated survey data at $56/LF for a boat in a slip with all the benefits which include parking, restrooms, electricity, security, nighttime lighting, easy access and walk-on walk -off, and use of the marina docks and gangways. We then calculated the annual rent allocation to the tidelands based on the rate of return typically used by State Lands, and not on the higher rate used by Newport Beach of 6%, which is above the typical 5% rate utilized in the three referenced reports, but which is appropriate due to the current interest rate environment while still within the long-term "5% to 6% of gross income" range as advised in the reports.

CONSIDERATION OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Slip Versus Mooring
The first consideration of adjustment factor is actual tidelands encumbered by the 40' boat which differs for a slip versus a mooring.

According to the California State Lands Commission reports, the "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities" publication (last updated July 2005) from the State Department of Boating and Waterways is used to determine the amount of submerged land area necessary to accommodate a given mooring size. The results are in the following chart:

I E
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-251

Fair Market Rent Analysis

TIDELANDS UTILIZED PER BOAT SIZE
Tidelands SF
Tidelands
Allocation per
Report
Boat Length
Allocation
Lineal Boat Foot
Tamales Bay Benchmark
31'
865
28 San Francisco Benchmark
38'
1,197
32 Southern California Benchmark
37'
1,153
31 Subject Estimate
40'
1,326

33.15 Compiled by CBRE
As previously determined, the Tidelands square footage required to accommodate a similar size mooring is somewhat greater than that of a slip, even when the docks, gangways and related features are added to the area associated with a slip. This is mainly due to the added square footage associated with lines from the vessel to the buoys vs the areas of dock space in front of and on either side of a slip, While we added significant extra square footage to each mooring to account for the area from a vessel to the buoys at the full beam of the vessel (which is an area greater than the distance used by lines to the buoys) we did not add any area for the swing of the boat since as a boat on a double mooring moves slightly in one direction it opens up tidelands in the other direction which can be used by the public for kayaking, paddle boarding and other recreational use.

Access and Amenities
The second consideration of adlustment factor is the difference in convenience and functional utility between a slip in a typical marina versus a typical mooring. Items include dedicated shore facilities such as restrooms and showers, actual utility to boat operation such as electricity and water, security, fencing, nighttime lighting, and most importantly use of docks and gangways for easy access, compared to a boat on a mooring that has none of these amenities. All other harbors with any significant sized mooring fields provide much less favorable access by way of dinghy docks available for docking dinghies and tenders for 24/7 access, but Newport Beach moorings unlike the moorings in other harbors, do not even have this access.

Clearly with a marina or slip rental, a renter can physically walk with all of their supplies to their vessel.

With a moored vessel, a dinghy or other boat is required to travel from the shore to the mooring.

Further impacting the subject Newport Harbor is the lack of access by way of an in -water motorized dinghy/tender for access to a Newport Beach mooring.

We have reviewed multiple harbors with both slips and off -shore moorings in San Diego, Morro Bay, Monterey, and Half Moon Bay Harbors, all of which provide docks where mooring renters and/or permit holders can have a tender for 24/7 access at no charge, with the exception of Half Moon Bay, which may charge a nominal $64 per month, and Monterey which changes $89 per quarter or $30 per month. San Diego's moorings have access to dinghy docks, but in some cases the dinghy dock may be more remote to some mooring fields. We have noted that data from these other harbors show that mooring rates are really a combination of not just the use of an area of the tidelands, but a combination of the area of tidelands used plus the use of dinghy/tender docks for fullfirne access to the 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 15 CBRE
13-252

Fair Market Rent Analysis
moorings 24/7, and in the case of San Diego, having the maintenance of the mooring (estimated at $120 per month) included in the fees.

Note that we have focused our research on public versus private ownership mooring versus slip fee rentals as the private institutions. For example, in Newport Harbor various yacht clubs offer shore boat service for a nominal fee which is less easily quantified. The yacht clubs total charges, including shore boat service, for moorings mostly on the larger size, would need to adiusted not only for the cost of a slip for a dinghy/tender in Newport Harbor, but also for the cost of purchasing a seaworthy tender with motor, maintaining the tender and engine, as well as other amenities the yacht club provides to its mooring holders.
2C
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-253

Fair Market Rent Analysis
Approximate Mooring to Slip Fee Ratio
In reviewing the slip to mooring fee ratios, this is a very imprecise "derivative" method and is difficult to rely on. Some of the reasons why it is unreliable and should not be used are discussed here. One malor factor is that similar assets are not being compared. As the old saying goes, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Another factor would be the extent to which an increase in slip fees does not necessarily track the supply and demand for moorings, especially larger slips that only a small group of people demand and can afford.

Another important factor that cannot be underestimated is that the comparison with other harbors is a comparison of Moorings plus Dinghy Docks to Local Slips. In the case of Newport Beach, it would be comparing Mooring without Dinghy Docks to Local Slips with full access. Whereas any Itratio" at other harbors would compare the area used by a mooring plus full access to a dinghy/tender dock for access to the mooring to rates charged for a slip of the same size as the maximum size of the mooring. This makes such a method even more derivative, since once an initial valuation is made using a ratio from other harbors, the suggested fee would need to be reduced by the cost of obtaining a slip for a motorized dinghy/tender available 24/7 without restriction.

As mentioned, the data regarding fees charged for moorings with dinghy dock access vs slip rates in other harbors and the resulting ratios are not sufficiently reliable and can be seen using a few examples. One example is the rates for moorings in San Diego have not risen in many years and may be due for an increase. If and when the lease would take off some of the caps on rates charged for moorings (plus use of dinghy docks, plus servicing the mooring equipment). If rates are increased, it will take years to ascertain if the public will continue to rent the moorings at the new rate and if vacancies will occur. So, while the manager of the San Diego moorings, like any other manager of any other rental property may "wish" to increase the rates, it is a wish, which is not a reliable source to be considered until and after it has been in place for many years and the response to the increase is known. Any owner of real estate may "wish" to increase his or her rental rates, but without doing so and assessing how the market will respond with move outs and resulting vacancies often will take years to assess. In the case of a boat on a mooring, it would likely take even longer since moving a boat off a mooring would require an alternative place to store the boat. A large sailboat with a keel cannot be put on a trailer, and the boat owner may be forced to pay above market rent until he or she can move or sell the boat. Again, it would take years to assess such a "wished for" increase.

The manager of the San Diego moorings has estimated that the cost to inspect and maintain the moorings Is in excess of $120 per month per mooring. Even after market rent was established, as mentioned, the "ratio" that may eventually be established in San Diego would need to be adjusted because the ratios in San Diego would not be for moorings versus slips, but for moorings with full maintenance, inspections, and full dinghy dock access, as compared to a slip.

Such a ratio, once established years from now, would not apply to Newport Harbor, where the 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 21 CBRE
13-254

Fair Market Rent Analysis
mooring holder pays for its own maintenance, inspects, makes periodic replacement of weights and chain, and where the City is not providing access by way of dinghy docks made reasonably available to all offshore moorings with 24/7 for access to the moorings.

To complicate the situation even more is the fact that while the manager of the San Diego moorings may "wish" to test increases in mooring rates, the manager has not obtained formal approval to do so at this time, nor has the State Lands Commission been consulted on any proposed increase.

In the case of Morro Bay, as mentioned, the rates charged for slips for the commercial fishing fleet and other commercial uses may be subsidized and would be difficult to measure. On the other hand, the rates charged for moorings plus ample dinghy docks is currently $110 per month for a mooring that can be used for a 50-foot vessel, which is approximately $2.00 per lineal foot per month. On the other hand, the City of Morro Bay charges approximately $26 per foot for slips as shown on page 32 of the Netzer appraisal report. That would indicate a ratio of over 1/10 and that is for moorings with docks for dinghy/tenders to allow access to the moorings 24/7.

It Is also worthy of note that the City of Morro Bay also has City -owned moorings and the City charges approximate 3 times more for renting City -owned moorings versus individual -owned moorings because the city installs and maintains the mooring hardware, likely has insurance to cover these activities, and makes necessary adiustments from time to time, whereas a Morro Bay mooring owner is responsible for all of these costs.

Monterey Bay data is also difficult to ascertain. One of the marinas where there is not a long wait time sits at the base of a power plant with many complaints about dirt and grime on vessels in the marina. It is unclear what the wait time is for other nearby marinas. Nearby Santa Cruz Harbor marinas do not suffer from these issues. A 45-foot slip in Santa Cruz would cost approximately $16 to $30 per foot per month depending on the location of the slip, with an average of $23 per foot, or $1,035 per month, compared to $187 per month for a "east harbor mooring" or $100 per month (if paid annually) for an "out harbor mooring," for an average of $144 for a mooring in Monterey Bay that also comes with dinghy dock access (at a cost of $89 per quarter = $30 per month) for a total of $174 per month for a mooring and a dock for a dinghy/tender to access the mooring. This would result in a ratio of 1/6, but again this is for a mooring with use of a dinghy/tender dock.

Half Moon Bay is also problematic for similar reasons. Slip fees for a 50-foot boat are on average $540 per month. Mooring rates are $1.92 per month per lineal foot, which is $96 per month for a 50-foot boat and add a possible $64 per month for use of the dinghy docks, for a total of $160 per month. But we do not know if there is a long wait list for slips or if the slip rate reflects market rates for slips. This would be 29.6% but again only as a combination of use of a mooring plus use of a dinghy dock.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 22 CBRE
13-255

Fair Market Rent Analysis
For all of the above reasons, the ratio derivative method derived from other harbors cannot be used.

Ironically, without looking to other harbors, the only ratio where moorings without din hy I --,g docks
to slips has been derived from appraisals conducted and accepted by the City of Newport Beach was approximately 2016. In that year, market rates for slips were shown in the George Hamilton Jones appraisal which showed the average slip rate in Newport Beach for a 40-foot slip to be $1,640 per month per month = $41 per lineal foot per month / $492 per lineal foot per year.

At the same time, Mr. Netzer appraised the market rate for Newport Moorings to be $32 to $38 per year, and the City established the rate to be $35 per lineal foot per year. The result was that that the ratio of mooring fees without din hy docks and without reasonable access to slips fees in Newport Harbor for a 40-foot mooring was 35/492 = 1/14 = approximately 7%. There is no reason to suggest that ratio would have changed. Again, this "derivative" approach is not a generally accepted appraisal approach and using this approach does not yield a much different result (when the lack of access is factored in) as compared to traditional established methods.

However, if used and applied to Newport Harbor based on the two formal and accepted appraisals done at that time, it would result in rates lower than the opinion of rates shown in this report.

As noted above, this "derivative" approach is the least reliable of all other methods and is included to show the various factors that are at play and change from time to time and are affected by different variables, such as favoring a type of use or a subsidized type of use, or popularity of one type of use over another as we have seen during the Covid years with people becoming interested in a condo on the water In a marina with electricity and easy access. For this reason, this ratio approach was not used.
23 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-256

Fair Market Rent Analysis
Proi)osed Rates for Citv-Owned Moorinas
The City is in the process of renting moorings under a license arrangement. Under the license the licensee is free to leave on 30 days' notice and has no capital commitment to the use of the mooring. The number of these moorings is limited, and each size is limited even more. As in the case of the possible future rate increases in San Diego, any data from such rental would take years to assess. First, these would need to be rented, then over the next few years the length of time a person rents such a mooring would need to be determined. Third, how the limited number of persons obtain access would need to be ascertained. For example, if the licensee has access by way of a home dock, a shore mooring, use of a boat that he or she was already using for their purposes, or use of a friends dock space, this would only demonstrate value, utility, or rent for that particular person where access was not an issue. However, that fact that a particular person may pay what is otherwise over market for the general public, thus does not establish market rent.

In addition, it should be noted that the City has created its own scarcity of rentable moorings. At any given time, the harbor master has observed that there are over 100 vacant moorings. At the same time the City does not allow mooring holders to rent these out. As such, the City has created its own scarcity of moorings for rent, and with only a handful available, this artificially and significantly decreases the supply thus artificially increasing competition and the amount of equilibrium or fair market rent indicated by the market, again which is entirely artificial in nature.

Of note also is the fact that the City will need to maintain, inspect, and periodically replace mooring equipment, buoys, anchors and chain, which is estimated by the operator of the San Diego Mooring Company to be over $120 per month.

For the above reasons, the future rental of this handful of moorings cannot be used in any comparative or other analysis.

As a final note, other harbors that have both privately -owned and City -owned moorings and have considered the difference in each, have established rates much lower for privately -owned moorings. For example, Morro Bay charges $110 per month for private moorings (and provides access to dinghy docks) but charges $330 per month when it rents out City -owned moorings on a long-term basis. Half Moon Bay charges $1.92 per month per foot for privately -owned moorings, but charges $5.08 per foot per month for City -owned moorings.

OTHER METHODOLOGIES NOT USED AND DEEMED UNRELIABLE
Comparison of Tideland Use in Connection with Adjacent Properties Should Not Be Used Attempting to separate component parts and considerations that make up a property value is an extremely unreliable methodology and if ever used as a consideration is done only when there are no other established methods. As shown in this report there are other established methods, and this approach should not be considered.
24 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-257

Fair Market Rent Analysis
A few examples might illustrate the issue with such a methodology. Consider a view home on a bluff that sells for $40 million dollars, and the identical home that is across the street from the view home and sells for $15 million dollars less. One might think the "view" component, by itself, has a value of $15 million dollars. That would mean that if there were an unbuilclable lot next to the view home it should have a value of $15 million dollars. However, it is likely the unbuilclable lot has little or no value. The extra value is completely integrated into the value of the home and cannot be separated from the location, characteristics, amenities, and established value of the home.

Another example would be rental of home docks within Newport Harbor. If a home with a dock has a value of $60 million dollars and rents out its 40 foot slip the slip rate should be four times higher than a $15 million dollar home that rents out its 40-foot slip. However, slip rates for home docks do not seem to vary much from marina slip rates and do not appear to correlate to the value of the adiacent home.

These examples are used only to illustrate why considering the value of adjacent real property cannot be used in extrapolating rates for moorings in Newport Harbor.

Attempting to Extrapolate Rates from Reported Mooring Sales is an Unreliable Method and Should Not be Considered
A handful of offshore moorings is sold and transferred each year. However, the data and circumstances are typically not fully known, and the number of sales is insufficient to establish a reliable database of sales where a buyer and a seller with full knowledge of the property in question established a value. Unlike real estate transactions typically handled by licensed real estate brokers, moorings are typically sold by individuals privately without help from brokers. In a brokered transaction, there are multiple disclosure forms required and used so the buyer has full knowledge of all of the risks and hazards that are known to be related to the property. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the single most important component of value, or lack of value, of a mooring is access to the mooring which, in all other harbors, is established by an adequate number of dinghy docks. While a person not familiar with the access problem in Newport Beach might see several public docks and mistakenly conclude that they have sufficient access to the mooring being purchased, that conclusion would be mistaken. Since the details of each of the reported sales are unknown, it is pure speculation to provide an opinion of the extent, if any, of disclosure regarding the material and functional lack of dinghy dock access in Newport Harbor. Once a person has acquired a mooring and put their boat on the mooring, it is difficult to find an affordable low cost alternative place to move the boat, which may be a reason why, after becoming aware of the access problem, a mooring might not be put up for sale in the short term (as the Harbor Department does not allow resale of moorings within one year of purchase), and the person might have to resort to far less desirable methods to gain access to the mooring.

In addition to the disclosure issue, there may be a handful of people for whom access is not a problem. For example, they may have a home dock, have access to a friend's home dock, may 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 2E CBRE
13-258

Fair Market Rent Analysis
have a shore mooring, may have a small boat on a slip that they already used for other purposes. The number of buyers of moorings for whom access is not an issue or less of an issue is completely unknown.

It is also noteworthy that the reported sale data is provided by individuals and not from any formal source. In some cases, a mooring is sold in combination with a boat and because a sale of a boat is subject to sales tax, the allocation on the price between the boat and the mooring might be adjusted 'in a manner that might have a lower impact on the sales tax to be paid.

These are some of the reasons why focusing on the fact that moorings are sold at a particular price cannot be used to ascertain rates to be charged for the use of the tidelands occupied by boats on moorings.

Summary and Conclusion
In contrast to the subject Newport Harbor Mooring fields, the surveyed harbors above provide easy access to moorings, with dinghy docks for in water motorized dinghy/tenders to allow people to access their moorings 24/7 with no significate time limits. Access to the individual moorings in these other harbors (all other harbors) is far superior to the subject as the City of Newport Beach provides extremely limited in -water motorized dinghy access to moorings. The handful of spaces available are limited in time and only randomly available, depending on how many other dinghies are using the limited spaces at any time. Moreover, the handful of dinghy dock spaces are also available to the public, not lust for access to moorings, and the space is limited to a maximum of 36 hours which means, in effect, if a mooring holder were lucky enough to secure a space, by the time he or she came back the next weekend his or her dinghy would have been impounded by the City and subject to a large penalty. As such, to make an appropriate adjustment, the benefit provided by the dinghy docks at other harbors needs to be quantified. To obtain a space for a dinghy/tender of 9 to 12 feet at a marina in Newport Beach, the costs would be approximately $400 to $750 per month. There is a limited supply of such spaces and often there is a minimum length of 18 to 20 feet, which is reflected by the higher range cost of $750. The estimated cost would of course change were the City to require marina operators to provide smaller spaces (without losing revenue) but that is currently unavailable. On a comparative basis with what other harbors offer (which is a combination of mooring plus access to the mooring), an additional discount is warranted as related to the preceding discussion and analysis. In other words, on a comparison basis, if Newport Beach provided easy motorized in -water access to moorings 24/7 without any significant time restriction, the rate would be subject to an upward adjustment.

However, as noted above, a mooring without access, just like land without access, has substantially diminished value.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 26 CBRE
13-259

Fair Market Rent Analysis

INDICATED MARKET RENT
Tidelands Rent for 40' Boat
Estimated Annual Rent to Slip for 40' slips in 2024
$26,880
Estimated Annual Rent for 40'slip in lineal feet
$672
Ratio of Mooring without access versus slip
1 /14
% Multiplier = 1 / 14

7.1%
Annual Market Rent for 40 Lineal Foot Mooring
$1,920
Annual Rent Per Lineal Foot
$48.00
Compiled by CBRE
Again, this was provided for informational purposes only and is not weighted in our final reconciliation of fair rent due to diminished reliability of the ratio approach compared to the other approaches utilized in the appraisals.
27 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-260

Fair Market Rent Analysis

METHODOLOGY UTILIZING MARKET INFLATION FROM THE PREVIOUS BENCHMARK The previously determined rent for offshore moorings was concluded to be $35 per lineal foot per year based on an appraisal performed by Netzer & Associates as hired by the City of Newport Beach. This $35 rate adopted by the City as determined by the City -hired appraiser is considered to be representative of market. The following analysis utilizes this benchmark rate with appropriate inflation factor applied to accurately reflect a market based rental rate in today's more favorable market.

CALIFORNIA STATE LAND COMMISSION - BENCHMARK PAIRED INFLATION DATA Reassessed Market Indicated Simple
Location Base Year Tidelands Rent Adjusted Tidelands Rent Annual Inflation Southern California Benchmark $0.374/sf in 2016 $0.451/sf in 2022 4.1% San Francisco BayArea $0.198/sf in 2016 $0.227/sf in 2022 2.4% Tamales Bay $0.114/sf in 2015 $0.133/sf in 2020 3.3%
CPI 1982-84=100 ***July 2018 Newport Harbor Adjustment based on March 2016 GHJ Appraisal December 2023 CP1 302.408 March 2016 CPI 238.132 3.48%
December 2023 CPI 302.408 July 2018 CPI 252.006 3.69%
Mean of All Survey Data 3.36%
Median of All Survey Data 3.48%
Compiled by CBRE
As illustrated above, the most recent reports reflect the highest inflation due to the unprecedented inflationary times experienced in 2020 and 2021, and as a result of which the Fed has increased rates over 500 basis points. This is an offsetting factor in the determination of a new benchmark rate which is highly influenced by the artificially -created inflationary environment of 2020 and 2021, which is not reflective of long-term trends. When inflation is measured against the relevant time periods up until 2020, historical inflation is closer to 2% per year. As such, downward consideration is warranted from the preceding data.

We have concluded to 3% as a long-term trend which is based on the 3.5% to 3.9% indication above, adjusted downward for the artificial inflationary environment of 2020 and 2021. 2E
0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-261

Fair Market Rent Analysis
In addition to the preceding, we have also compared current surveyed rents to those indicated in a City of Newport ordered appraisal by George Hamilton Jones dated March 2016.

NEWPORT BEACH PAIRED RENT ANALYSIS
Rent From 2016
Indicated Simple
Location
Boat / Slip Length
Current Rent
GHJ Appraisal
Annual Inflation
Lido Yacht Anchorage
40'
$52
$37

5.5%
Balboa Yacht Basin Marina (no amenities)
40'
$50
$32

7.7%
Bayside Village Marina
40'
$41
$32

3.8%
Newport Dunes Resort Marina
40'
$76
$42

10.9%
Mean 6.5%
Median 6.6%
Compiled by CBRE
Of important distinction, note the greatest inflation was observed for those properties with the greatest amenities again which is a function of the q�f,�ficiqll created demand and resultant inflation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and use restrictions where people spent increasingly more time on their boats, which is enhanced by amenities.

And again, demand is clearly tapering, and the recent two-year inflationary environment is not reflective of stabilized long-term trends. Furthermore, mooring utility and desirability is vastly inferior compared to a marina slip with immediately convenient accessibility and amenities such as water and power, restroom facilities, dedicated parking, etc. As such, the increase in demand and pricing for a mooring versus a slip would not be correlated 1 : 1, it would be reasonable that slip fees would increase at a much higher rate than a mooring, especially given the level of affluence of the surrounding community.

As evidence of this, we have reviewed the mooring transfer logs from 2017 to 2022 which includes pricing. The value of moorings while having increased over the years (again most recently given the uptick in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic), has increased by a marginal basis which is nowhere near the rates indicated in the preceding slip rent increase indication. As such, appropriate inflation for mooring rents should fall well below the indicated inflation or paired slip rent analysis over the same time period. The inflation and other tidelands rates serve as a much more relevant benchmark for inflation compared to paired slip rents.

Conclusion
Based on the preceding data indicated by the recently reassessed Benchmark Rates for California State Tidelands, market -driven inflation data, and actual paired -rent comparable information from Newport Harbor, an appropriate inflation factor should fall in the 3% range. We have based the time adjustment on the July 2018 adoption date of the previous benchmark rate change. The appropriate time adjust is approximately five and one-half years. The implied adjusted market rent is detailed in the following chart. 0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 25 CBRE
13-262

Fair Market Rent Analysis

INDICATED MARKET RENT
2016 Appraisal 2018 Adopted City Benchmark Offshore Mooring Rent $/Lineal Ft/Yr $35 Simple Inflation Factor at 3.5% without a cap Annual 3.5% July 2018 Adoption date versus I Q2024 New Benchmark Date Years 5.5 Total Inflation 19%
Prior Benchmark $35
Market Conditions Adjusted Rate $42
Benchmark Lineal Feet of Boat 40
Annual Market Rent $1,670
Compiled by CBRE
3C
D 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-263

Reconciliation of Market Rent
Reconciliation of Market Rent
The rent indications from the two methodologies are summarized as follows:

SUMMARY OF MARKET RENT ESTIMATES
Annual Rent
California State Tidelands Commission Methodology $1,613 Inflation Methodology Based on City's Prior Benchmark $1,670 Ratio Method $1,920
Reconciled Market Rent Estimate $1,640
Based on Typical 40 Lineal Foot Boat $41.00
Compiled by CBRE
As discussed throughout the report, the ratio method is deemed the least reliable methodology illustrated in the appraisal. We have placed equal approximate emphasis on the first two methodologies utilized in the preceding chart.

Based on the foregoing, the market rent of the sublect tidelands has been concluded as follows:

Sq Ft of Tidelands Used — No Swing Facto
Boat Size
+
Lines + Buoys*
x
Beam
Total Sq Ft
30 +
24 x
12 648
40 +
28 x
15 1,020
50 +
34 x
17 1,428
60 +
34 x
19 1,786
+
34 x
21 2,184
31 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-264

Reconciliation of Market Rent
Rates without a Swina Factor
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
Tota I Sq Ft
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
648
$803.52
$26.79
40 1,020
x
1,020
$1,264.80
$31.62
50 1,428
x
1,428
$1,770.72
$35.42
60 1,786
x
1,786
$2,214.64
$36.91
70 2,184
x
2,184
$2,708.16
$38.69
Add Swina Factor at 20%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
20%
Total Sq Ft
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
778
$964.72
$32.16
40 1,020
x
1,224
$1,517.76
$37.95
50 1,428
x
1,714
$2,125.36
$42.51
60 1,786
x
2,144
$2,658.56
$44.31
70 2,184
x
2,621
$3,250.04
$46.43
Add Swinq Factor at 25%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
25%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
810
$1,004.40
$33.48
40 1020
x
1,275
$1,581.00
$39.53
50 1428
x
1,785
$2,213.40
$44.27
60 1786
X
2,233
$2,768.92
$46.15
70 2184
x
2,730
$3,385.20
$48.36
Add Swinq Factor at 30%
Boat Size
Sq Ft with
Lines etc
x
30%
Tota I
with Swing
Fee Per Year
at $1.24 sq ft
Fee Per Year
Per Lineal Foot
30 648
x
843
$1,045.32
$34.85
40 1,020
x
1,326
$1,644.24
$41.11
50 1,428
x
1,857
$2,302.68
$46.06
60 1,786
x
2,322
$2,879.28
$47.99
70 2,184
x
2,840
$3,521.60
$50.31
* Variations with Summary results from rounding square foot calculations. 32 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.

CBRE
13-265

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, "CBRE") has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil and the entire inferior and exterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is made as to such matters.

The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the "Report"), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date.

3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that:
(i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss that may arise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company.
(i i) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems.
(iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off -site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.
(iv) Hazardous materials are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances.

The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air or development rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property.
(vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based.
(viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently or super -efficiently.
(ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses.
(x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property's compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. 0 2024 CBRE, Inc.
33 CBRE
13-266

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
(xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property.

Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE's attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions.

4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, property owner, or owner's representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor's Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report.

Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report.

5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit.

6. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have been disregarded with only real property being considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property.

7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. Actual results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections.

8. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of any particular value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the value of the subject property. Furthermore, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole purpose of providing the intended user with CBRE's independent professional opinion of the value of the subject property as of the date of the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decisions based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property.

9. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters.

10. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.

11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user's failure to become familiar with and understand the same.

12. The Report applies to the property as a whole only, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate such conclusions, unless the Report expressly assumes such pro ration or division of interests.
0 2024 CBRE, Inc. 34 CBRE
13-267

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

13. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use.

14. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report.

15. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user.

D 2024 CBRE, Inc.
3� CBRE
13-268

Addenda

ADDENDA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-269

Addenda
Ad&

GENERAL DATA
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-270

I
A ST
UO

P BLICPOCK
'0.0
L

0.0 L
0000000
- - - - - - - - - 74 - - - - - m - m 70�
55 44 33 22 11000
65 54 43 32 201.,10
Z5 64 53 42 301 .0
-07- - - 63 52 41,. o
296 94 62 510oo
295 236 83 61 0 0
294 285 2 .0
293 284 275 266 00
2 283 274 265 81 .0
2 255
292 2 6J4 22 .0

1. Zq 1. 282 273 254 245 236
272 26 235 22
��2 2 253 244 225 123
271 243 234 A 0
r 233 224 1
.2AII 252 204 184 154 3 1 2 122
251 242 Moo
141 232 223 203 183 173 153 31 # o
222 42
PW U 1 202 192 182 172 162 152 141
I- �2V- .2 1 20 1 191 181 171 161 151 .0 o
IWBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
00 200 400
Feet
m 0
ooring A
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015

R
�23'1
AIR,
AQC,
D
71 Remnsula
PFF
100 400
mm,6��
Feet
m
V A Rai
-Al
I
7 PyrM.r%7q
F-j" 'F
A
Mooring A
City of Newport Beach
GIS D vision
March 216, 2015
MooringsA.mxd 13-272

PARK AVE

PUBLIC DOCK
u u
ir --------- ------
201 191 171 161 151 141 131 121 111 101
91 81
71 61 51
41 31
21 1
:202 192 172 162 152 142 132 122 112 102 92
82 72
52 42
32 22
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- WSJ 23 103 93
-
83 73
53 43
33 23
13 - - - - - - - - - - - W
54 44
34 24
14 35
25 15
111111,36
26 161
17 Al n
150 300 11111P 411*
mmqm��
Feet
Mooring B
Lu
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS D I v i's ilo n
March 26, 2015

19 W
=06m�
le F,eeot '00
4";
L 6 -
A
;AjjA r
A-�
0 L�
-�4
Mooring B
B, G
,AYL
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 25, 2015
/15-Z/14

100 100
Feet
LU
U-
87 46 36
26 HD1 C I
1 1
66 56
76 35
25 HD2C
86 55 45
65 34
75 24
HD3C
95 85
C 54 44
64 33
74 23
13 z
94 84
43 53
73 63 32
22 12
Q
%
% 93
83 42
72 62 52 31
21 11
% % 92
82 41
61 5
-
LU
% 91
81 71
nm�
-Z/,
0 0
0 7
�o il
0 110
7 0
IPA
Mooring C
Mp
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015

F�
EmElli
Ol 100 100
F—t
0 0
0 A
Mooring C
0 01.4
.,Oak
—Jr.
0 roof
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015 1
13-276

iRK�

PROMONTORY
BAY

HARBOR ISLAND DR
W W U—
> >
0 0
u u >
0 u
FA) Ell--IEE

BAYSIDE DR
- — — — — - — — - — - — — 7 — — — - — — - — — -
--7 -747-2 2F ll� 1 1
W -18 67 74 12 0 8 6 4 2
--Z--787-16 4 31
7Z 72 0
'r 76— -;4- -672 Z 4� 4�
17 15 13 11 9 7 - 5 3 L
1 55 53 51 49 47 45 D w --------
- — — — — — — - — — - - - - 43 23
1 25 wl
- .39 37 35 33 31 29 27w � w w w
n I - �-, n
ON
I I E) 150 300
m=16;;;;;mmmmj
Feet
Mooring D
�M
�'m
(0
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015

I -fts� —lift 7�7' r
0 ,Skl--.M.%Vl -. — k k , - — '* '. --
?t
le
v,
V
B I
$mom
L I'm
I low
15o 1k:
=16m�
Feet
Mooring D
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
MooringsD.mxd
/15-Z/O

0000000
PH Y
F-002 C
F-004
F-006
— - — — - — — - — — - — - - — — - — — - — — - — — - — - - — — - — - - - — - — — — — - — — — — — - F-008 F-010
F-022 F-020 F-018 F-016 F-014 F-012
F F-003 F-001
F-007 F-005
F-021 F-019 F-017 F-015 F-013 F-011 F-009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BAY AVE W
71 _15
Feet
Mooring
Number of Moorings: 22
Total Area: sq. ft.

NEWPORT MACH
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
September 24, 2018

0-
0 CIRCLE DR

SAY SHORE DR
I - — — - — — - - — — - — — — - — - - - — — - — — - - — — - — — — - 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
— — - - — — - —
15 17
G
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 18
- - - - - - - -
0 100 200
Feet
Mooring G
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
MooringsG.mxd

WOF&INA

� 0 100 200
=16m�
Feet
&4 -v;rw. I A. I )v
0 Mr.

Nf
P I"
fell
vi
2hp
%tv-
Ok
L
r 4, 0 4-4
Mooring G
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
/ 15-ZO I

LU Ce ::E
j 0 D Iz, LU
Cie !L
0 S� 0 Od UJI > ix
::E Od U-1
D CO
IZ Qd
c:::]
67r---———---———----
81A 71 A
61A
813 713
613
A13 13
812 712
612
Al2 12
811 711
611
511
A 1 1 211 11
1 810 710
610
510
A10 310 210
1 89 79
69 59
A 39 29
1 88 78
68 58
A9 H
8 38 28
1 87 77
67 57
A7 37 27
v 86 76
66 56
A6 36 26
1 85 75
I 8A
65 55
A5 35 25 1

NEWPORT CHANNEL
7A
6A
5A
AA 3A 2A
1 83 73
63 53
A3 33 23
1 82 72
8 81
62 52
A2 32 22
Ir - - - - -
71 61
51 Al 31
- - - - - - 2.1 - - - -
- - -
- -
F
A
mm%m�
11-1 1-10
Feet 11 NRa r k

BAY AVE
Cn
ID= C"N
F—F-7—TITIT-111-1 L-717717-7-FI-17
Mooring H City of Newport Beach
GIS D I v i's ilo n
March 26, 2015

0 t4
U16-
,,mom
. L
li
F.,'
0"
Arm
2 ou;
ete ns .:4 W,-r;
- I
125 250 ofia I
Feet
Mooring H
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015
Mooringsti—d
WOF&A

,4C 1�1
V)
01 EITM--
121 21.
00 Feet lff�
uj
z
0 K a,
------------
516
e
615
515
71 A
61A
51A
AlA
813
713
613
513
A13
113
Lu%>
812
712
612
512
Al2
312
212
112
**
811
711
611
511
All
311
211
ill
.*
810
710
610
510
A10
310
210
110

PFONSIULA
89 79
69 59
A9
39 29
19 98
88 78
68 58
A8
38 28
18 107 97
87 77
67 57
A7
37 27
17 1
H
106 96
86 76
66 56
A6
36 26
16 105 95
85 75
65 55
A5
35 25
15 10A 9A
8A
7A
6A
5A
AA
3A
2A
1A
1103 103 93
83 73
63 53
A3
33 23
13 1102 102 92
82 72
62 52
A2
32 22
12 1101 101 91
81 71
61 51
Al
31 21
11 L= - = = = = - = - = = = = _ = _
= = = =
_ = =
= = _ = _ = _
= = _
= _ a
= 'UjhjjjjjmmL=
Mooring J
V)
LO

BAY AVE W
Tm
9 City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015

'A*
4F
-7 I�y 1111.0 . 6,
44 0 %
7 0. L--W.

I
B I
.A
- --jVF4,
qlllmmRmi&-- A. Marina
�'W'terans
Park
Mooring J
City of Newport Beach
GIS Division
March 26, 2015

STRADA CENTRO
Z IZ :5
"r. d I
§ IZ.
z .2 0 z >
0 z
0 W 0 0
z oe —

>
>
> V)

VIA LIDO SOUD
9 9 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------ K-021 K-019 K-017 K-015 K-013 K-011 K-009 K-007 K-005 K-003 K-001 K
K-022 K-020 K-018 K-016 K-014 K-012 K-010 K-008 K-006 K-004 K-002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 75 110

ANCHORAGE WAY
Feet
NEWPOR7 BEACH
Number of Moorings: 22
44s)
K Mooring Total Area: 138,265 sq. ft. City of Newport Beach 14 GIS Division
September 24, 2018
Moorings-Aflas—d
113-ZOO

Addenda
Addendum

APPRAISER LICENSE
(9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-287

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
ROBERT Z. JACOBSON, MAI
Executive Vice President
Valuation and Advisory Services
Cell. + 1909 227 2386
robe rt. loco [email protected]
www.cbre.com/Robert.] acobson

CLIENTS REPRESENTED
Institutional
— Prologis
— Blackstone
— KKR
— Panattoni
— IDI
— Altus
— Trojan
local
— Lewis Group
— March JPA
— HIP
Bank
— Deutsche Bank
— Wells Fargo
— Cantor
— Western Alliance Bank
— US Bank
— Connerica
— Citizens Business Bank
Self Storage
— Trojan
— Public Storage
— SmartStop
— ExtraSpace
— A-1
— SoCal
ROBERT Z. JACOBSON, MAI
Robert Z. Jacobson, MAI is the head appraiser in the Ontario office for CBRE Valuation & Advisory Services. Mr. Jacobson joined the Ontario office in 2002 and has served institutional as well as local clients on all types of appraisal and consulting assignments throughout the Inland Empire. Mr. Jacobson also works in concert with the National Self Storage Valuation Group that Is based out of the Ontario office.

Assignment specific experience includes Mr. Jacobson's appraisal of harbor usage -oriented properties in Oceanside and Port Hueneme Harbors, and his access to and review of CIBRE's vast resources which include appraisals of commercial properties and associated water rights and associated rent determination in virtually every harbor along the California Coast, as well as more harbor specific uses nationally including but not limited to:

Property Description
CBRE Harbor Appraisals
• Harbor Redevelopment
• Port - Market Rent Arbitration
• Multiple Marina Portfolio
• Marina Harbor Apartments & Anchorage
• Deep Water Bulk Container Facility
• Dry Stack and West Slip Mixed -Use
• Super Yacht shipyard & dryclock
• Shipyard & Dryclock
• Super Yacht Marina

REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNMENTS
Property Description
Industrial
• General Mills
• Proctor& Gamble
Self Storage
• Public Storage — Proposed
• SoCal Self Storage
Land
• Riverside Mining — Industrial
• Future Residential Land

CREDENTIALS
Location
Confidential, CA
Confidential, CA
San Diego, CA
Marina Del Rey, CA
Confidential, WA
Naples, FIL
Puerto Rico
Confidential, FIL
British VI
Location
Perris
Moreno Valley
Los Angeles County
Hollywood
Riverside
Adelanto/Victorville
Professional Affiliations/Accreditations/Certifications 0 Appraisal Institute, Designated Member (MAI)
0 Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California, No. AG035731

EDUCATION
0 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Bachelor of Science Duel Major Finance and Accounting — Cum Laude
Size
Acres
239 acres
300 acres
900+ slips
966 unit, 321 slip
12,000 acres
350 slips
97,000 GSF
28 acres
30 slips
Size
SF
1,547,342
1,479,117
Units
2,065
1,007
Acres
223
1,150
13-288
CBRE

0 too
Businessl Consumer Services & Housing Agency

BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
4k REAL ESTATE APPRAISER LICENSE
Robert Z. Jacobson
has successfully met the requirements for a license as a residential and commercial real estate appraiser in the State of California and is., therefore, entitled to use the title:
"Certified General Real Estate Appraiser"
This license has been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate Appraisers' Licensing and Certification Law.

BREA APPRAISER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
3070653
AG 035731
Effective Date: July 8, 2023
Date Expires- July 7, 2025
aA* &0' 7Z�&-
Angela Jemn(��, Bureau Chief, BREA

Newport Mooring Association
Objection to Proposed Offshore Mooring Fee Increase
Date: January 31, 2024
To: The Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Reference: February 1, Study Session on Offshore Mooring Rates The Newport Mooring Association strongly objects to the furtherance of DISCRIMIATION against mooring holders in Newport Harbor. In a separate position paper, the Newport Mooring Association will show the history of systematic discrimination against Mooring Holders, as compared to the treatment of all other users of Newport Harbor. An outline of our significant concern over the history of apparent discrimination is outlined in Exhibit 5 below. Mooring Holders already pay far more to the City for use of a small area of the harbor compared to what is paid for by marinas, waterfront homes and virtually all other uses. Now, the Harbor Commission is on the verge of substantially increasing the effect of the Discrimination hammer in what appears to be an ongoing effort to force people of low income and who may be outsiders out of the harbor. Make no mistake, the weaponization of the Appraisal Hammer is just a further attack on mooring holders which appears to be part of an on -going war to rid the harbor of outsiders. The fees being charged mooring holders are already four times more than what is being paid by waterfront homes for use of the tidelands in front of their home for their private docks. This proposal would increase the disparity drastically more, so that the gap would be up to 10 times more than what private dock owners pay, and over 5 times more than what commercial docks and homeowner associations pay.

The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) also objects to the process by which this proposed rate increase was developed, which excluded public input and review. These objections pertain to proposed offshore mooring increases. Two years ago, the NMA provided a report objecting to the then proposed increases in onshore mooring rates, which is a matter of public record. The agenda item in the last Harbor Commission meeting concerned only offshore moorings, the appraisal submitted entitled offshore mooring rates, and the study session announced at the Harbor Commission meeting was for a study session on only this matter. If in the event that there is any discussion of on -shore mooring rates at the study session, the NMA strongly objects to including on -shore moorings for failure of proper notice to the public. 13-290

Overview
The Newport Mooring Association ("NMA"), has studied the proposed fee increase, staff report and Netzer appraisal ("Netzer Report"), and finds that:
• The proposal significantly threatens affordable recreational boating • The proposal highly discriminates in fees charged by the City of Newport Beach for other tidelands use in direct violation of the Beacon Bay Bill • The proposal violates the reported and stated goals of the City to provide affordable boating access
• The proposal and methods used in the Netzer Report contradicts the customary method used for determining fees charged for tidelands use, including the State Lands Commission, and contradicts the City's own 2017 appraisal and valuation of tidelands for almost all other uses, and
• The Netzer Report itself is based on an erroneous methodology and contains numerous false assumptions and errors.

Given the radical nature of the proposal, the clear discrimination in rates prohibited by the Beacon Bay Bill, and the clear contradiction in methods, rates, and conclusions in the City's own formal appraisal report for values charged for use of the tidelands, the NMA is requesting that any further discussion by the Harbor Commission be delayed no less than 90 days to allow the Commission, Staff, and the Stakeholders to provide input on any proposal to rase rates for the offshore recreational moorings.

Discussion
Boating and sailing are the heart and soul of Newport Beach. One needs only look at the logo of the City shown everywhere, from signs as you enter the City to the City's website and letterhead.

The social and recreational activities in the area, the commercial, restaurant, and entertainment of the City, and the unique values of properties, are all uniquely connected with the current and historical connection to boating and sailing. Put another way, if the tidelands were just an open marshland, like those seen up and down the coast of California, Newport Beach would be nothing like it is today.

Preservation of this tradition is not possible without affordable and entry level boating and sailing. Young boaters and sailors learn their skills on smaller or older boats that are only in the harbor because there is affordable access. The Harbor Commission and the City should commit to supporting affordable boating and sailing. The NMA is concerned that, this Commission will be the first in the history of Newport Beach to take steps to displace, diminish, and destroy the importance of sailing and boating in Newport Beach.
2 13-291

1. Discrimination in Rates
The Beacon Bay Bill, often referenced by the City of Newport Beach as guiding its administration of the harbor, provides that:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith (See Exhibit 1).

The proposed fee increase will clearly discriminate in rates charged for the use of the same tidelands. For example, in 2017 the City received an extensive appraisal from George Hamilton Jones ("GHJ Appraisal") which assessed the rental charges to be applied to most of the uses in Newport Harbor, most of which were commercial, and some non-commercial uses. Uses not covered were call "Other Uses." In effect, the rates charged for every one of these uses, from large marinas, small marinas, fuel docks, shipyards, yacht club guest slips and "other uses" looked at the square footage of tidelands used by the particular use and applied a similar rate (with some very minor adjustments), including a few discounted rates. The general non - discounted rate was $.76 (76 cents) a square foot per year for the use of that area of tidelands.

That amount was indexed to a CPI adjustment which is still in use, and today's published rate is $.93 per square foot per year, including the rate for "other uses." This rate has already been published by the City for 2024.

Applying the City's published rates, the annual, non-discriminatory rate for a 40ft. offshore mooring would be $948.60 per year (1 020sq.ft. x $.93 = $948.60). This is a rate somewhat less than the current rate even after adding extra square feet for lines to the buoys.

Unless the Commission and City were to recommend a substantial increase in rates being charged to all uses of the tidelands (i.e., the various Newport large marinas, small marinas, restaurant docks, shipyards, and guest docks, Homeowner Association slips and moorings, and Waterfront Home Docks), singling out the recreational offshore moorings for a 300% to 500% increase in annual fees for the very same tidelands use would be clearly a discrimination that cannot be justified in any manner. Further such an exorbitant rates, tolls, or charges in uses would be an outrageous violation of the City's obligations under the Beacon Bay Bill, as well as provisions of the California Public Resources regulations.

11. Discrimination Against Outsiders and Protected Persons.

Without having to conduct any studies, it appears that offshore mooring holders are far more likely to live outside the City than homeowners with private docks and persons who rent expensive slip space for their yachts. When one combines the significant overcharges and discriminatory charges now in existence, and the radical proposed increases that further discriminate, in addition to the many other ways mooring holders are treated unequally, this 3 13-292

raises the obvious question of whether the proposed increases are intentionally or unintentionally designed to keep people out of the harbor if they do not live in Newport Beach.

Also, it would appear that the existing discriminatory policies plus the proposed increases do and will have a disparate impact on protected minorities. Therefore, the City should not double down on such discriminatory policies.
111. Violation of the City's Reported Commitment to Affordable Boating The NMA believes that the Staff report incorrectly implies that the City's hands are tied and that the City must charge maximum fair market permit fees. In reality, the City has in the past taken a more reasonable, fair and affordable approach to setting mooring fees.

A. The staff report should point out that that the precedent setting City resolution on setting mooring fees (Res #2016-17) gives the City authority in setting fair, reasonable and affordable mooring fees.

B. In the past, the City, and its staff have incorrectly stated that the state lands grant (aka Beacon Bay Bill) requires the City to charge fair market rents (as if they were landlords in the private sector renting real estate without regard to other factors, including providing accessible and affordable recreational use of the tidelands). The "fair market" language in the Beacon Bay Bill, however, only relates to the private residential lots in Beacon Bay, and not the tidelands in general (See Exhibit 1). Any local ordinance or resolution that relies on or repeats the incorrect reading of the Beacon Bay Bill cannot be used to justify increases in recreation uses in the Harbor.

In fact, the City has always recognized special treatment for recreational use considerations. See, for example, the City's justification for lower rates charged for recreational and other uses of the tidelands in relation to boating activities — the City's Resolution 2017-49, Section 3 (Exhibit 2).

C. The staff report should also include City Council Policy F-7 (E) (Exhibit 3) which gives the city authority to keep fees at an affordable level for recreational purposes.

D. The State Lands Commission (SLC), the State agency responsible for oversight of these tidelands, has approved, and utilizes better methodologies (i.e., benchmarking) in determining fair and reasonable tideland fees. Resolution 2016-17, NBMC

17.60.060 (D) and the Beacon Bay Bill (Exhibit 1) give the City citywide discretion in determining the best methodology in determining fair and reasonable rents for moorings. Moreover, in the Tomales Bay Mooring Valuation Report (Exhibit 4), just one year ago, SLC has used a totally different methodology, a methodology 4 13-293

consistent with the method used by the City of Newport Beach in its GHJ Appraisal 2016/2017 valuation of rates for different uses of the tidelands in the harbor.

E. The staff report fails to include, and should include, City Policy 3.3.2-3 (LCP/CLU) (Exhibit 6) whereby the City will continue to provide moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor. The omission of this policy from the staff report is a failure to inform the Harbor Commission, City Council, and the general public that the city has made a promise to keep mooring fees reasonable and affordable which is an important factor in determining any discretionary fee increase.

IV. The Netzer Report Ignores State and City Approved and Established Methods
The Netzer report ignores the methods used by both the City, the City's appraiser, and by State Lands when valuing an appropriate fee to be charged for the use of tidelands in general, and in Newport Harbor in particular. Staff and Counsel should review both the 2016/2017 GHJ Appraisal and City resolution regarding the rates and methods applied to valuation of the Newport Harbor tidelands, and also review and include the methods used by SLC in its recent determinations of rates to be charged in SLC's Tomales Bay Report.

V. The Netzer Report Uses the Wrong Methods and Contains Numerous Errors.

A. Overview regarding Mr. Netzer's Approach.

1. Ignoring Established Methods. The report totally ignores the methods of both the City in the recent past appraisal, and the methods used by State Lands, and is a major mistake. The State Lands report clearly says it is using the principle of "Substitution" — namely what the State would receive for the same tidelands if rented to a known use such as a marina owner. In effect, that was the same method used by the 2016/2017 City approved appraisal. The Netzer report states clearly that it is not using the principle of Substitution, ignoring established methods, and instead makes up methods never seen before as the report struggles to establish a type of "comparable" that the Netzer report admits does not exist, or did not want to go to distant harbors to find.

2. Use of Wrong Comparison. Using the price of expensive land and comparing land to water (tidelands) makes no sense and is not any type of established method. Put simply, you can build a house on land, but not on water, and the values simply can't be compared. 5 13-294

3. Not Understanding a Mooring. To "compare" two properties or two items one needs to understand how the two are alike and not alike. The Netzer report clearly shows a lack of understanding of how moorings are used, and compares a mooring to a slip without proper evaluation and proper offset for:
- lack of access,
- cost of having to rent a slip or dock space for a dinghy or tender for access. - lack of electricity,
- cost of batteries needed to start an engine,
- lack of water,
- lack of restrooms,
- I ack of dedicated parking,
- I ack of trash removal,
- lack of lighting and security
- dealing with and cost of installing and maintaining the buoy system, - cost of installing and maintaining the lines to the buoys, - the monthly cost of cleaning the lines that get full of marine life, Each of the above would need to be understood with an appropriate off -set when attempting to compare a mooring to dock space.

4. Failure to Account of Capital Investment. In comparing a mooring to a slip, there is no consideration to the fact that, unlike a person renting slip space, the person using a mooring is likely to have a substantial capital investment of $40,000 to $60,000 in addition to biannual mooring maintenance fees. A person renting a slip does not have any capital investment or maintenance cost for the slip and is required to only pay rent for the slip.

B. Specific Flaws in the Netzer Report

1. The Report Fails to Reduce Value for the Cost of Dinghy Dock Access. - All other harbors have dinghy docks for access; Newport does not. - To equalize comparisons, the cost of a slip for a dinghy or tender should be subtracted from, Netzer's proposed fees.
- $500 to $700 per month is the Current Slip Rate at Marinas in Newport for Dinghies and Tenders 9 ft to 14 feet.

2. The Report Fails to Use Established Methods Used by State Lands Commission and Used by Newport Beach for All Other Uses. The SLC uses a benchmark of 5% to 6% of the rents received by a marina. Then, the SLC divides the amount by the square feet of tidelands M
13-295

exclusively used by the marina to establish a yearly fee per square foot of tidelands used. This 46value per square foot" is then used for other uses. The City of Newport Beach followed this standard method for virtually all uses in the Harbor in the 2016 George Hamilton Jones Reports with yearly increases which is currently shown on the City's website. Netzer breaks away from the Standard Method used by both the State and the City of Newport for all other uses in favor of what appears to be a convoluted contrived method aimed at clearly discriminating against mooring holders, many of whom do not live in Newport Beach and many of whom are of a protected class of persons.

3. The "Ratio" of Slip Rates to Mooring Rates is Unreliable, per Mr. Netzer in a Prior Appraisal and Compares Apples and Oranges. "The Ratio Analysis ... is notjudged to be a reliable measure ofFair Market Rent ". These are Mr. Netzer's words in his 2016 appraisal of offshore moorings (page 20). We concur, it's like comparing apples to oranges, and as shown below does not consider the lack of access in Newport Harbor.

4. The Ratio Approach Compares "Slip Rates to Mooring + Dinghy Dock" Rates in Other Harbors, Instead of Slip Rates to Newport Moorings Without the Same Access. - All other harbors that have large mooring fields provide two things not one. Their mooring rates are for both an area of the tidelands for a boat, plus use of dinghy docks for a dinghy or tender for access to the moorings. Newport rates are for only one of these two things. The use of a small amount of tidelands but does not provide dinghy docks for access to the moorings. The real ratio referred to in the Netzer report is for a mooring plus a 24/7 dock space for dinghies as this combination is compared to slips. That ratio cannot be used for a ratio in Newport Beach which does not provide half of what is offered in other harbors when someone rents a mooring. - The ratio between slips, and moorings without access, can be calculated by comparing the 2016 George Hamilton Jones report and the 2016 Netzer Report. When comparing 2016 rates for slips to the 2016 approved rates for offshore moorings, the ratio was approximately I to 14, or about 6% per lineal foot. As far as ratios are concerned, there is no reason why the ratio between Newport slips and Newport offshore moorings without access would have changed in the last few years.

5. The Report Greatly Exaggerates Tidelands Used by Larger Moorings. The area of tidelands used by larger sized moorings will only increase marginally on a square foot basis.

Comparing the square foot used by a 65-foot boat to the area used by a 40-foot boat, will result in no significant difference in rates charged per lineal foot. Here's a simple example:
40 foot mooring (allowing for extra distance to each buoy and the buoy itself = (40+28) x 15 (beam) = 1020 sq ft.
7 13-296

65-foot mooring adding the extra distance to each buoy and the buoy itself = 65+34 x 16 =1,584 sq feet.

The 65-foot mooring rate is 1.55 the rate of the 40-foot mooring, but on a lineal foot the rate is the same. For example, using the current rate of $38 per foot, 40-foot mooring is $1,520, and using the same rate per lineal foot, a 65-foot mooring would be $2,356 compared to the current rate for a 65-foot mooring at $38 per lineal foot = $2,470. The idea of charging the larger mooring substantially more per square foot cannot be justified.

6. Mr. Netzer Appears to have Misstated the Facts in his Public Comments. Upon inquiry by one or more commissioners at the January Harbor Commission meeting, many of us recall that Mr. Netzer stated that he had been in discussion with a person or persons in San Diego who advised him that (a) the Port Authority had approved a substantial increase in rates for San Diego moorings (which have dinghy docks) and that this had also been approved by the California State Lands Commission.

Members of the NMA contacted the owner of the San Diego Mooring Company, the Port Authority, and State Lands Commission and found that (a) there have been no approvals, (b) the request has not been made public yet and public input has not yet been requested, and (c) the State Lands Commission has received no request and had not even heard of the matter.

What is more, the San Diego Port Authority is not being asked to "approve" new rates, rather, they are being asked to amend a current restriction in the lease with the mooring company which would allow them to test the market and experiment with rate increases up to a new requested higher cap in rates. What may or may not be a rate increase and how the market responds over time, is not a matter that any appraiser would ever consider at this time in rendering an opinion of values and rates.

7. Valuation of Home Docks is an Unacceptable Never -Before -Used Method, a False Comparison, and Will Raise Home Dock Taxes and Fees.
- The method does not account for location — homes with docks in more desirable locations will show a higher square foot value for the home, which does not equate to more value for use of the dock.
- The method fails to explain why a private dock next to an expensive home rents for the same as a private dock next to a substantially less valuable home.

The method is derivative on derivative and is almost never used.

The method if used would require home dock fees to be increased 20-Fold.

The Stop the Dock Tax cry will likely be heard again by homeowners with docks, if subjected to such an increase.
93 13-297

VI. The Harbor Commission Needs Time To Consider the Forthcoming Independent Appraisal
The NMA has requested an independent appraisal of market rates for offshore mooring rates. As announced a few days after the publication of the Netzer report at the Harbor Commission Meeting in January, that report was scheduled to be completed three to five weeks later. Following that announcement, the Harbor Commission chose to set its study session approximately a week before the independent report is due. It is unclear why they would want to have the study session without having the benefit of reviewing the independent report. Be that as it may, the NMA urges the Harbor Commission to take no action until they have the benefit of the independent report and set another study session with the full Harbor Commission to allow further study and public input after the independent report is available to the public.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE
For the reasons stated above, and given the major public interest in the issue, and the important of current and future boating and sailing in Newport Harbor, and given the extraordinary proposed increase in fees, and given what appears to be a proposal that clearly discriminates in use rates, and a clear violation of the Beacon Bay Bill, and given the clear contradictions in methods, rates, and conclusions in the City's own formal appraisal report for values charged for use of the tidelands, as stated above, the NMA is requesting that any further discussion by the Harbor Commission be delayed no less than 90 days to allow the Commission, staff, and the stakeholders to provide input on any proposal to rase rates for the offshore recreational moorings.

Newport Mooring Association,
Approved by the Board of Directors
W
13-298

EXHIBITS
10 13-299

Exhibit 1 — Relevant Sections of the Beacon Bay Bill
Ch. 3171 STATUTES OF 1997 CHAPTER 317
An act to amend Sections I and 2 of Chapter 74 of, and to add Section 2.5 to, the Statutes of 1978, relating to tide and submerged lands in the City of Newport Beach. [Approved by Governor August 18, 1997. Filed with
Secretary of State August 18, 1997.]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section I of Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978 is amended to read:

Section 1. Th ere is hereby granted to the City of Newport Beach and its successors all of the right, title, and interest of the Stat e of California held by the stat e by virtu e of its sovereignty in and to all that portion of the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, bordering upon and under the Pacific Ocean or Newport Bay in the County of Orange, which were within the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, on July 25, 1919; the same to be forever held by the city and its successors in trust for the us es and purposes and upon the following express conditions:
(a) Th elands shall be used by the city and its successors for purposes in which there is a general statewide interest, as follows:
(1) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of a public harbor; and for the construction, maintenance, and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways, and streets, and other utilities, structures, and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion or accommodation of commerce and navigation.
(2) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of public bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the general public; and for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operation of all works, buildings, facilities, utilities, structures, and appliances incidental, necessary, or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of any such uses.
(3) For the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the lands in their natural stat e and the reestablishment of the natural stat e of the lands so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area. 11 13-300

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the city or its successors shall not, at any time, grant, convey, give, or alienate the lands, or any part thereof, to any individual, firm, public or private entity, or corporation for any purposes whatever; except that the city or its successors may grant franchises thereon for a period not exceeding 50 years for wharves and other public uses and purposes and may lease the lands, or any part thereof, for terms not exceeding 50 years for purposes consistent with the trust upon which the lands are h eld by the state and with the us es specified in this section.
(c) Th elands shall be improved without expense to the state; provided, however, that nothing contained in this act shall preclude expenditures for the development of the lands for the purposes authorized by this act, by the state, or any board, agency, or commission thereof, or expenditures by the city of any funds received for such purpose from the state or any board, agency, or commission thereof.
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith.
(e) The state shall have the right to use without charge any transportation, landing, or storage improvements, betterments, or structures constructed upon the lands for any vessel or other watercraft or railroad owned or operated by the state.

M There is hereby reserved to the people of the state the right to fish in the waters on the elands with the right of convenient access to the waters over the lands for such purpose, which rights shall be subject, however, to such rules and regulations as are necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes specified in subdivision (a). (g) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, the city may lease the lots located within Parcels A, B, and C described in Section 6 of this act for the purposes set forth in this act and for terms not to exceed 50 years. The consideration to be received by the city for such leases shall be the fair market rental value of such lots as finished subdivided lots with streets constructed and all utilities installed. Th e form of such leases and the rang e of consideration to be 12 13-301

received by the city shall be approved by the Stat e Lands Commission prior to the issuance of any such lease. All money received by the city from existing and future leas es of those lots shall be deposited in the city tideland trust funds as provided in Section 2. 13 13-302

Exhibit 2 - Section 3 of Resolution 2017-49
Section 3: The City Council sets the rental rates, phase -in, and adjustments contained in the attached Commercial Tidelands Rent Calculations For Commercial Uses Located Upon Tidelands for Shipyards, Yacht Club Guest Slips, and Free Public Access Docks (not associated with a restaurant) at less than fair market value. Pursuant to City Council Policy F- 7(E)(6), the City Council finds charging less than fair market value rent for these specific uses promotes the goals of the City to further marine -related services and activities. More specifically, the City Council finds charging less than fair market value rent for these uses promotes public recreation facilities and marine services to the general public, furthers the policies and objectives of the Beacon Bay Bill, and allows for continued operation and improved accessibility to the public. Thus, the charging of less than fair market value rent for these uses of the Tidelands is a matter of state-wide concern that benefits the citizens of the State of California. 14 13-303

Exhibit 3 - City Council Policy F-7 (E)
NB City Council Policy F7 (paragraph E) allowing city to discount for recreational public use E. However, in some circumstances the City may determine that use of a property by the public for recreational, charitable or other nonprofit purpose is preferred and has considerable public support, in wfLich case the City may determine that non- financial benefits justify not maximizing revenue from such property. In such circumstances, the City has a vested interest mi ensuring that the lessee of such property operates the activities conducted on or from the property in the manner that has been -represented to the City throughout the duration of any lease or contract with the City.
15 13-304

Exhibit 4 - Tornales Bay Mooring Valuation Report
(Excerpt re Mooring Fee Methodology)
Meeting Date: 12/17/20 -Work Order Number: W27247 Staff: D. Tutov, K. Foster Staff Report 28 - LAND TYPE AND LOCATION: Sovereign land in Tornales Bay, Marin County Category 1 Benchmark Methodology
Leases are issued by the Commission for private recreational facilities such as docks, piers, and buoys/mooring poles. These facilities offer many of the same amenities as a commercial marina, such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. In this manner, these privately owned facilities represent a substitute for a commercial marina berth/buoy. Accordingly, the method of valuation used in estimating a fair return and a fair rental value is based on what an individual would pay for a similar substitute site in a commercial marina. Since a Commission -leased site for a privately owned pier or dock is a reasonable substitute for a marina berth, a lessee occupying state land should pay a similar rate for the leased site as the state would receive for leasing the land to a commercial marina.

The current methodology for setting rent for berthing vessels at docks and piers occupying state-owned sovereign land is based on the principle of substitution described above. The first step in setting the Tomales Bay Berths Benchmark is to survey local marinas to determine their rental rates. Marinas usually rent their berths on a per -linear -foot basis, based on the length of the berth or vessel. For benchmark purposes, the average surveyed rental rate is used. The rate is multiplied by the average or typical berth length as indicated in the survey data. Based on these inputs, the annual gross income is calculated. For Category I benchmarks the State's rent is based on a 5 percent rate of return of this annual income, which represents a comparable fair market compensation rate for the use of State-owned sovereign land. The State's rent is then converted to a per -square foot basis using a table calculated by the California State Parks Division of Boating and Waterways 2005 publication titled "Layout and Design Guidelines for Marina Berthing Facilities" (DBW berthing publication). This publication provides formulas and tables for calculating the submerged land area needed to accommodate various sizes and layouts of berths in marinas. Among other variables, the formulas account for the berth length, berth layout (single or double), 16 13-305

and the type of vessel (powerboat or sailboat). The publication can be requested from the Department of Boating and Waterways here.

Category 1 Tomales Bay Benchmarks
The Commission has been using the Tomales Bay benchmarks since 2010. They were last updated in 2015, when the rates were set at $0.114 per square foot for berths and $125 per buoy.

For determining the proposed new rental rates, the following summary describes the methodology; more detailed information is included in Exhibit C. A total of four marinas and/or buoy fields in Tomales Bay were identified. However, due to the lack of comparable rental data information for three of the locations (Marconi Cove Marina, Inverness Yacht Club, and Lawson's Landing), the Tomales Bay Resort (previously Tomales Bay Lodge and Marina, and the Golden Hinde Marina) was the only marina located in Tomales Bay used in the analysis for this benchmark.

Because of the limited number of marinas in Tomales Bay, a survey was done of other nearby marinas outside of Tomales Bay that might be used in absence of the three marinas acknowledged above. Four nearby marinas with slips were also used: Spud Point Marina, Mason's Marina, and Porto Bodega in Bodega Bay, approximately 20 miles northwest; and the Petaluma Marina on the Petaluma River, approximately 24 miles northeast. Thus, a total of five commercial marinas with slips were used in the analysis of the current Tomales Bay benchmark.

These five marinas with berths reported a total of 652 berths available to the public, or an average of 130 berths per marina. The average occupancy was reported at 85 percent.

The survey found that berth sizes in Tomales Bay, Bodega Bay, and the Petaluma River ranged from 12 to 80 linear feet, with an average of approximately 31 linear feet. Rent for berths is commonly expressed in terms of dollars per linear foot (per month). The survey data yielded an average rent for berths of $6.20 per linear foot.

The benchmark rental rate for berths is calculated by multiplying the average berth length by the average monthly rental rate. The product is then multiplied by 12 months to arrive at the gross annual income. The gross annual income is multiplied by 5 percent to get the income attributable to the submerged land. The income attributable to the submerged land is then divided by the amount of submerged land needed to accommodate the average berth length within a marina.
17 13-306

Using the DBW berthing publication described above, the submerged land area used in this benchmark analysis is based on a double berth layout (on the premise that it was the most economically efficient for the marina operator) and represents an average of the powerboat and sailboat berths.

From the tables in the publication, a submerged area of 865 square feet is shown as being necessary to accommodate the 31-foot average slip length indicated by the survey.

Taking all the inputs into account, the proposed benchmark rental rate is calculated as follows:
31-foot average berth size x $6.20/linear foot average berth rate $192.20/berth/month
$192.20/berth x 12 months =
$2,306/berth/year $2,306 x 5 percent of
gross income = $115.30 $115-30 865
square feet = $0.133/square foot
PROPOSED BERTHS BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE = $0.133/SQUARE
FOOT [NMA Comment: This this the annual, not monthly rental rate] Other than the leases being issued by the Commission, there is no independent market for buoys in Tomales Bay. Therefore, the current minimum annual rent of $140 is proposed to be applied per buoy. The minimum rent for a Recreational Use lease is set by California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 2003, subdivision (b), and as revised by Commission action on June 28, 2019 (Item 92, June 28, 2019).

PROPOSED BUOYS BENCHMARK RENTAL RATE = $1401BUOY
The table below summarizes the comparison between the 2015 and 2020 benchmark rates (Note by NNU — these are annual not monthly rates).

Figure 1. Tomales Bay Benchmarks
Tornales Bay Benchmark
2015
2020 [NMA note: fee per year]
Category I Berths
$0.114/square foot
$0.133/square foot
Category I Buoys
$125
$140
[NMA Comment: The entire report can befound here]:
https:llslcprdwordpressstorage.blob.core.windows.net/wordpressdatal202O/l2/l2-l7� 20 28.pdf
18 13-307

Exhibit 5
Outline of Concerns over Apparent Historic Discrimination by the City of Newport Beach against Mooring Holders
Moorings on the State Public Tidelands in Newport Harbor have been in existence for over 100 years and have provided an important source of access for boating both within Newport Harbor, the California Coast, and the Pacific Ocean. The granting statutes enabling and allowing the City of Newport Beach, including but not limited to the Beacon Bay Bill disallow discrimination related to the administration of the tidelands among different uses both in the letter of the laws as well as the spirit of the law. This outline suggests discrimination over the last 20 years by the City Newport Beach as it relates to these 100-year-old moorings.

A Few Examples of Apparent Ongoing Acts of Systematic Discrimination Against Mooring Permit Holders.

1. Killing Access to Moorings.

Historically, shore moorings were readily available that provided access to offshore moorings. Over time the shore moorings were transferred to people who did not have offshore moorings which created the need for dinghy docks for dinghies and tenders to access the offshore moorings, similar to virtually every other harbor in California and the United States that has a substantial number of offshore moorings. However, for decades the City has consistently ignored requests to provide real access for in -water dingy docks for access to moorings.

The City's consistent reply is there is no place available for such access. Yet at the same time, the City has found such areas and used them for other projects.

2. Overcharging for the Costs to Administer Moorings.

The City collects about 1.5 million dollars per year from off -shore moorings, when the cost to administer the moorings, in our view, may be less than $300,000 per year (unless you allocate inappropriate costs related to the harbor). Note the mooring pen -nit holder is required to maintain its buoy and equipment, so other than collecting fees and inquiring about boat insurance and other contact 19 13-308

information, very little costs are associated with the administration of moorings.

Yet, over the last 20 years, the City may have collected over 20 million dollars in excess fees without creating a single in -water dinghy dock to provide reasonable access. A mooring without access is like the sound of one hand clapping. It's just a method of making the acquisition and use of a mooring unattractive to most people. The exception might be local residents who have home docks, local slips, access to friend's docks for access to offshore moorings.

3. Failing to Provide Access While Building Dock Facilities for Access to Restaurants and Businesses.

While the City has claimed for decades "there is no space", the City has built docks for short terms tie ups to benefit businesses such as restaurants. For example, this is true of Marina Park, (reported to have been built at a cost of 40 million dollars) which created a dock which appears to be 200 long to tie up for use of boaters going to the restaurant at Marina Park and for use of approximately 25 large boat slips (for boats over 40 feet) and 18 or more small boat slips. At the same time, not a single dock space was created for use of a motorized 9 to 10 foot dinghy for access to moorings (one 40 foot boat slip equals 8 in -water dingy spaces). These slips, many of which are not used most of the year, are directly in front of the two biggest mooring fields. As a very minor concession, the City did allow "racks" for storage of a non -motorized rowboat, inflatable, or kayak, but these have to be lifted up, taken to the water to row out to a mooring, if the mooring holder is able enough to do so. These are nothing like real access by having a motorized electric or outboard dinghy in the water as provided for in virtually every other harbor with moorings).

4. Charging Fees that are 4 Times, or More, for Tidelands Used a Mooring Compared to What is Charged for All Other Uses.

For the same amount of tidelands used by an offshore mooring, the City charges homeowners with docks 1/4what it charges for an individual mooring. In addition, an offshore mooring is currently charged substantially more than the published rates charged by the City for almost all other uses, including commercial uses. At the same time, the City is now considering raising these rates so the discrimination will be up to 20 times more than what homeowners with docks pay, and 5 to 10 times more than what commercial users pay for the same amount of space. Put 20 13-309

another way, the other uses are charged far less for the use of the same amount of tidelands they use. In most cases these other uses are commercial uses, where the permit holder is making a profit. In general, the State is allowed to charge less for uses that are not commercial, not more.

As shown it the City's public posted rates, annual fees paid by restaurants with docks, marinas for releasing its slips, and homeowners with docks that sit on the same tidelands are charged far far less than the annual fees set for mooring permit holders. Calculating rates based on the square foot of tidelands used is the standard method used by the State Land Commission when establishing the fair and non- discriminatory rates to be charged for use of tidelands, including offshore mooring in the state. Recent reports and appraisals from the State Lands Commission clearly demonstrate this is the proper methodology. Ironically, many people would argue that tidelands which touch the shore have a higher square foot value because of easy access when compared to offshore tidelands with limited access. As such, it could be fairly argued that the use of tidelands for offshore moorings should be charged even less than what is charged for tidelands that touch the shore, yet for the City of Newport Beach charges5 to 10 times more for use of the offshore mooring tidelands.

5. Attempting to Make Access to Moorings Dangerous and Inaccessible by Eliminating Space Needed to Get Onto and Off Moorings, while Proposing to Increase Space for Boats on Homeowner Docks. Currently before the Costal Commission is a proposal to crowd together boats in mooring fields (which make it much more difficult to use moorings) in the name of making "open water" views for homeowners, while at the same time not asking the Yacht Clubs who have mooring fields to bring their boats closer together. By way of background, the Yacht Club mooring fields use approximately twice the amount of tidelands space per boat than all the other public mooring fields. That's because these are "single point moorings" where a boat could swing in a 360-degree circle depending on the wind and tidal currents. However, no one, including myself and all other mooring field permittees that I know would ask these mooring fields to change to a different system that uses less of the tidelands.

Having noted the discrepancy and the fact that no one would consider asking the yacht clubs to put boats closer together, keeping the yacht clubs mooring configurations Oust like keeping the other mooring field configurations, is important). Yacht clubs single point moorings are easier to get on and off and 21 13-310

allow for other uses such as small boat races within these single point fields. Both systems work well together. San Diego, for example, has both single point and double point moorings and both serve an important public purpose.

6. Prohibiting the Rental of Moorings While Allowing the Rentals by Homeowner and Others. If unoccupied the City is allowed to rent out an offshore mooring dock and collect a fee, they do not allow for the rental of similar tidelands used by homeowners, restaurants and others. The two uses are being treated differently, especially without any compensation to the mooring holders who paying their fee to the City for use of the tidelands when the mooring is not being used and rented to others, the City continues to collect the permit holder's fee and collects a fee from the visitor who's boat is tied to the mooring, and tied to the mooring hardware owned by the mooring permit holder (not by the City), including use of the buoy, chains and tackle owned 100% by the mooring pen -nit holder. Not one penny is being reimbursed to the mooring holder who is and has been paying the fee for the use of the tidelands - the same tidelands the City is renting out to others.

This is not only a clear act of discrimination in the management of the tidelands, it is intentionally designed to keep mooring unoccupied. As noted below, at any given time there are 100 or more offshore mooring vacant for periods in excess of 30 days, and often for months and years.

8. Claiming that the City is Attempting to Increase Access While Killing Access to the 100 Empty Moorings. According to the Harbor Commissioner, at any given time there are approximately 100 vacant moorings. As noted above the City has the right to rent these out to both visitors coming in for a few days as well as for people seeking affordable places to keep and use boats. For over 20 years, the City could easily have increased use of these 100 empty moorings. However, the City has set the rental rates so high that the vacancies remain. While a few are rented the vast majority sit unused. The reason is obvious, the City intentionally sets the rental rates so high that most boaters are priced out of the market, putting rates as high as the cost of having a boat on a slip at a neighboring harbor.

The City has suggested that one reason for the vacancy is that they cannot offer a 3� 6, or 12 month lease, and that discourages the use of these 100 moorings. They claim that they cannot offer these longer -term leases because the mooring holder 22 13-311

has the right to put a boat on the mooring at any time, so the would-be long-term lessee is not interested if he or she can be asked to move on short notice. This explanation has no merit. First, most vacant moorings have been vacant for years and a simple inquiry can find out if there are any plans for occupancy, so while it might be a theoretical concern, most people will understand this is a remote risk in most cases. Second Commission in public stakeholder meetings, the Newport Mooring Association has proposed that the City ask vacant mooring holders if they would agree not to put a boat on a mooring for a certain period, such as 6 or 12 months in exchange for a relief of having to pay mooring fees during that time.

Having presented the obvious solution, the Harbor Commission never even studied the proposal. This suggests that it is more important for the City to keep the water free of boats on moorings, and enhance some homeowner's harbor views, than it is to actually provide additional public use of these empty moorings.

Simply put, by over -charging for these 100 moorings, in addition to the other acts and omissions noted above, the City has shown a systematic attempt to keep moorings vacant and though various means drive the diverse group of mooring holders, including many protected minorities, out of the City.

Effect of Discrimination
The discrimination is wrong and needs to stop. It violates plain decency as well as state and federal laws.

This discrimination in rates and charges violates the Beacon Bay Bill, often referenced by the City of Newport Beach as guiding its administration of the harbor, provides that:
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith
What is more, without having to conduct any studies, it appears that offshore mooring holders are far more likely to live outside the City than homeowners with 23 13-312

private docks and persons who rent expensive slip space for their yachts. When one combines the significant overcharges and discrimination charges now in existence, and the radical proposed increases further that discrimination, in addition to the many other ways mooring holders are treated equally, this raises the obvious question of whether the proposed increases are intentionally or unintentionally designed to keep people out of the harbor if they do not live in Newport Beach.

Even more concerning, without have to conduct any study, it would appear that the existing discriminatory policies and proposed increases do and will have a Disparate Impact on protected minorities and the City should double down on such policies.
24 13-313

Exhibit 6 - City Policy 3.3.2-3 (LCP/CLU)

3.3.2-3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor,

3.3,2-4. Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize interference with navigation and where shore aucess. and support facilities are available.

3.3.2-5. Continue to enforce the
ordinances that require
moored and docked
vessels to be seaworthy
and navigable and thereby
preserve the positive image
of the harbor and promote
public tise of the water,

3.3.2-6. Protect, and where
feasible, enhance and
expand guest docks at
public facilities, yacht clubs
and at privately owned -
marinas, restaurants and
other appropriate locations.
11" SIreed boat launch i�nduuishore moorngs

3.3.2-7. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County, and private means,

3.3.3 Harbor Support Facilities
Harbor Support facilities are uses, equipment, and vessels that provide repair, maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, cleanfng, and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting the harbor. Harbor support facilities are considered essential to maintaining a working harbor.

Increased environmental regulation and real estate price inflation in coastal communities have impacted a number of harbor support businesses, Those businesses that do rot have to be on the water have moved to inland locations.

Those that are more water dependent have been involved in land use conflicts Wth res�dential and other land uses. Newport Reach has used land use controls as the primary method to provide for the continuation of harbor support uses and minimize lard use conflicts, However, additional strategies and incentives may be necessary to protect these facilities.

Loral Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan
3-36
25 13-314

From: Sandy Manich
Sent: March 14, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: faulty appraisal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please stop the discriminatory practices in Newport Beach against Mooring holders, especially those that are legal live aboard residents of Newport Beach! You are supposed to be representing USH!
Sandy Manich
Licensed, clear credential California Teacher since 2016 13-315

From:

John Rogers
Sent:

March 14,2024 2:48 PM
To:

Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council
Cc:

Bill Seals; Duley John
Subject:

Mooring fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

How are you all? Can you tell me what's up with the mooring situation and trying to increase the fees dramatically? If so do you know who ordered the increase/why/what isthere plan to do with the money?
I have asked these questions from members of the harbor commission for several years and have not had any response to my questions?
What persons or persons order the increase or proposed it? Is the City out of money?
And just exactly how would they spend the money - they must certainly have a plan and budget? How does the increase make the boating more accessible to Residents and Californians? Simple questions from a simple businessman and resident for over 60 years! I look forward to your response!
Respectfully ,
John Rogers
Synergy Direct Response
130 E. Alton Ave.

Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-824-3780
13-316

From: todd hill
Sent: March 14, 2024 7:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
LEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Bad show. How can you possibly justify such a huge jump in charges? There has been nothing more provided to justify any increase.

Many boats have already left the harbor. PHRIF racing is all but dead in this harbor. An increase like that won't make it any better. You may get some $ now but tomorrow it could be gone. What is there to stay for?
13-317

From: Claire Cordell
Sent: March 15, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate hikes.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Good grief. 500% increase is completely unfair! Mine is a little shire mooring. A 500% is going to be a real burden for me. I can see a small hike to keep up with everything else but not 500%!! Please please no. We are all getting taxed to death as it is and now this. Who in heavens name think this was a good idea?
Please do not do this to us.

Sincerely, Claire Cordell
13-318

From: Cheryl
Sent: March 15, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Stapleton, Joe
Cc: Dept - City Council; Scully, Steve; Blank, Paul; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie; Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy; Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don Subject: Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. A
Hi Joe - We live on the peninsula and have had a sailboat on a mooring for over 25 years. We are asking for your help with the mooring rate hikes the Harbor Committee is proposing. The NMA position is laid out below . We have read the Netzer appraisal which even to our non-professional appraisor eyes has many flaws and errors. The CBRE appraisal offered as a counter is much more in line with the facts and with traditional methods . We sincerely hope you will take the time to carefully consider all the facts and agree that the Netzer appraisal is seriously flawed and that the rates they propose are insupportable by any standard. We will be attending the Harbor Committee meeting on March 18 to voice our support for the NMA position. We hope that when the matter reaches City Council you also will support the NMA position . Thank you for your consideration.

Keith and Cheryl Garrison
311 Island Avenue
Mooring A-240
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Newport Mooring Association News
Date:Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
From:Newport Mooring Association
Reply-To:[email protected]
To:[email protected]
Newport Mooring
Association
, i i I "�'_ - - I 'I',
Harbor Council Special Meeting Notice
13-319

March 18th at 5:00 prn
City Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA
This the final Harbor Committee meeting on the subject of the rate hike. They will vote on their recommendation to City Council. We need your attendance.

Stand together, show your support, and make your voice heard 13-320

KL--.".
ft� U�5 - fkN vs HC �Mmff&cp
1(ury lRoommimWon
goam
Iflum
Amm
'UM
41W
�T
13-321

Read More
Join us at the Civic Center on Monday at 5:00 PM to stand with fellow mooring holders & residents of Orange County. The Harbor Commission is recommending a significant increase of 500% for all mooring holders, including On -Shore Moorings. Don't let this happen without having your voice heard. Come together in support.

The Harbor Commission is not recognizing the CBRE appraisal, provided by the NMA, and has doubled down on the severely flawed Netzer appraisal READ NMA Position CBRE Appraisal
Talking Points to Keep in mind - When Emailing
A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more
compared to other permits. We already pay our fair
share
Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service
marina slips. Apples to oranges comparison
The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal,
Netzer himself indicated it was unreliable to peg
mooring rates to slip rates.

Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since
there is little access with no amenities
It's time for the City of Newport Beach to address the
long-standing discrimination & faulty Netzar appraisal
faced by Mooring Holders
13-322

I -AA
Click here to email City Council
ewport Mooring
Association
Become a member of NMA
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Contact us at [email protected]
13-323

Newport Mooring Association I P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118 Unsubscribe cheryl@)qbfenterprises.com
Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
13-324

From: Phillip La Plante
Sent: March 15, 2024 4:37 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links 7 attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content L
Dear members of the Newport Beach City Council:

I have been a resident of Balboa Island since 1964. My father acquired both an onshore and an offshore mooring in the mid '60's and my family still owns those moorings to this day. We have enjoyed relatively affordable boating for over 5 decades as a result. I have been following the debate over the proposed mooring rate increase and in fact was a classmate of the appraiser Jim Netzer at Corona del Mar high school.

I want to go on record as OPPOSING THIS RATE INCREASE. The proposed rate increase of up to 500% is simply not fair or reasonable. The Newport Mooring Association has conducted their own appraisal and come up with a far lower valuation by a highly reputable appraisal company. With all due respect to my classmate Jim, CBRE, the largest real estate company in the world, is way more qualified and has more credibility than Jim does as a solo practitioner. Having been in the real estate business for over 35 years, I can assure you that appraisals are highly subjective and can vary greatly. Among the flaws in the Netzer appraisal is the fact that he equates moorings with docks, which is absurd. A dock provides convenient access to your boat as well as water and power. This is an apples to oranges comparison. A mooring owner must also periodically maintain the cans and chains.

A goal of the California Coastal Commission is to provide affordable access to the public to the beaches and waterways of the state. This proposed rate increase does just the opposite. For many, this proposed rate increase is simply unafforclable, and will force them to find other options or force them to sell their boats. My father was not a wealthy man. He was a retired Naval officer with a pension when we moved to Newport. He would surely be outraged at such a dramatic rate increase if he were still alive. I urge you to vote NO on this proposal, or at the very least CONTINUE THIS ITEM so that the merits of the CBRE appraisal can be considered. In the real estate business, there is a process called baseball arbitration. This is when two parties who disagree on a valuation each hire an appraiser. The parties then agree to hire a 3rd appraiser. The two closest appraisals are then averaged, and the other appraisal is thrown out. This process provides incentive to come up with a reasonable number for fear of their appraisal being thrown out. Perhaps something along these lines could be considered. Just accepting only one appraisal that is flawed is not fair or good governance.

One thing I can promise you is that the mooring holders such as me who are also voters in this city will be watching this matter closely. Anyone who votes for this outrageous fee increase will be making a large constituent of voters very unhappy and will vote accordingly.

Respectfully,
13-325

Phillip La Plante
Pacific Coast I nvestments
220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P 949.378.7740
E [email protected]
ATHINK GREEN ... Please consider the environment before printing this email

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This electronic mail message, all related responses and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this message or by telephone and delete all copies from your system. 13-326

From: David Gubser
Sent: March 15, 2024 5:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Harbor Commission Rate Proposal Changes
��WICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Council Members
This commission is far out of reach in the name of improving and maintaining recreation boating in our beautiful harbor. They only have an agenda of pricing the average on -shore and off shore mooring out of existence for the average child or young family. Their analysis of fair and equitabLe rates are seriously flawed and do not stand up to simiLar rate structures for like services along the west or eastern seaboard marinas. If their pLanned recommend rate increases are put in place by your Council family recreational. boating wiLL never be the same. Monies gained by this well heated city treasury wiLL be further fattened for more nonsense projects like the multi-miLLion dollar pLanned Lecture haLL to boost the egos of the Newport elite. Remember this is Newport Beach and Newport Harbor around which the city and boating community was built. Now you want to restructure it for the rich and famous mega -yachts. Please preserve it's future and do not destroy recreational boating.

These appointees on the Commission are not even boaters ruling without listening to the boating community input and cancelling their very existence in the future.

Dave Gubser — Resident and mooring owner (unless the changes go forward) 13-327

From: Adam Miller
Sent: March 16, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please don't raise the morning rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

I'm already pretty upset about how you're treating the Newport Island entrance improvement. My taxes on my 1 condo over five years couLd pay for the whole thing and yet you can't find the money out of 140 properties to pay for it. And now you're going to muLtiply my mooring price by 5X. Crazy! PLease don't.

Thanks,
Adam MiLLer
Newport Island Resident/Owner
13-328

From: Claire Cordell
Sent: March 16,2024 7:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Shore moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

I am shocked. 500% is absolutely horrible! You do not have to do anything so it's not like u work on them or something. The prices of everything are hurting all of us and now this. We haul them out do all the work in them so why pay u for it?
Claire Cordell P-64
13-329

From: Phil Rodas
Sent: March 16, 2024 8:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council; Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding Proposed Shore Mooring Price Increase JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear Newport Beach City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed increase in shore mooring prices within Newport Beach. Such a rate hike, which could potentially reach up to 500%, is not only unfair but also highly unreasonable. As a mooring permit holder, I believe it is crucial to highlight several key points that demonstrate why this proposed increase should not be implemented.

Firstly, mooring permit holders are already paying significantly more compared to holders of other permits. In fact, our fees are approximately four times higher than those for other permits. This indicates that we are already paying our fair share and should not be subjected to such exorbitant increases.

Additionally, the Netzer appraisal, which is being used to justify these price hikes, is based on a flawed comparison. The appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina slips, which is essentially comparing apples to oranges. This approach does not accurately reflect the unique nature of mooring permits and the services (or lack thereof) that come with them.

It is important to note that even Netzer himself acknowledged the unreliability of pegging mooring rates to slip rates in a previous appraisal conducted in 2016. This further underscores the flawed basis on which the proposed rate increases are being justified.

Moreover, mooring permit holders experience limited access and lack amenities that are typically associated with full -service marina slips. Given these limitations, mooring rates should actually be heavily discounted rather than increased.

In conclusion, I urge the City Council to reconsider the proposed shore mooring price increase. Such a drastic hike is not only unfair to mooring permit holders but also lacks a valid basis in terms of comparison and justification. I appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that you will make the right decision for all stakeholders involved.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Phillip Rodas
Shore Mooring owner
13-330

From: Brian Fluhr
Sent: March 16, 2024 9:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring fee increase. Unacceptable
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello
I understand the need to increase fees in line with the increased cost of living and property values However, this should be a stepped increase, and not a outrageous increase A stepped increase should be about 5 to 10% could be yearly but what is being proposed and talked about is not acceptable it would not be acceptable property tax it would not be acceptable in school tuition. It would not be acceptable in health rates. It would not be acceptable in insurance rates just because these are boats.

These are moorings, and these are people who are seem to have money so that they can support these boats and Moorings is not acceptable people should be treated fairly and that's who we are. We are people treatment in massively increasing expenditures is not acceptable. Not all of us are wealthy some of us, including me are lucky enough to have a small piece of a shore morning and Do not want to be taken advantage of when this is just simply a way to escape and enjoy the water of our community.

Please stop this increased, and make it reasonable you must increase.

Best,
Brian Fluhr
714.371.7493
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianfluhr/
Want to meet? Book a time.
13-331

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ludgate
arch 17, 2024 8:31 AM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
&.-, k e, a W, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Could someone please explain the logic behind d this proposal you have put forth ? The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated
Paul
13-332

Mayor - Wiliam O'Neill
wo n e 11 l@ n ewop rtbeachca. g ov
City Council
[email protected]
A
a
Baal LMWM "we Mow I mrs
Exi-511mg
Amium Pm-prm It Fj*
JApptoximata�
35ft
$1,403
40ft
$1,603
45ft
$1,804
50ft
$2,004
60f(
$2P405
70ft
$2P806
Sent from my iPhone
C
D
E
PhIVA10 P4*tfj6U.0
PFIV.Itd MkP-OFIFPK
PFw0td".*wft P*Perrnadr
EwhstIOCRAR
PPft0Q4qd
p1d"010d PCw f4twoKs
Xn n u A Piptynil F*.b
Aprupal
pon4multo
JA,ppieximjte�
Po r M it F L-,,
Pnc:*-3-t*
$309
$4,292
2 06%
$317
$5,770
260%
$311
$6,642
268%
$450
$8.724
33,5% Ptptrw4w
$534
$12,211
509% Rpuwmi
S617
$14.935
432% ppraiai
rha ci), "Mr) diplrs�*d
Prom exhlb!* D on *.hp
K.C. AgWrL03 j1ji)Q4
13-333

From: Chris Bliss
Sent: March 17, 2024 8:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Forcing mooring holders out of the harbor is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Your own council member already said the city would be "SLUMLORDS" for raising rates so unreasonably high. (OC Register 2016).

Doing do will cement this SLUMLORD title in stone. This will be your legacy.

PLEASE, don't approve this astronomical rate increaseM
Christopher Bliss
Bliss Photography
949-887-9737
www.NewYorkPictures.com
Sent from my IPad
13-334

From: Cliff Auerswald
Sent: March 17, 2024 10:12 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fwd: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a $40,000 increase over 10 years
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links 7 attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Hello
My shore mooring is W51 back on Newport island. Are we subject to these potential rate hikes? Cliff Auerswald, President All Reverse Mortgage, Inc. (ARLO"') Toll Free (800) 565-1722 1 Direct (714) 385-9803 Celebrating 18 Years of Excellence A+ Rated 131313 (5-Stars) HUD Approved Lender ID #26031- 0007 N M LS #14041
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Branson
Date: Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 8:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a $40,000 increase over 10 years
To: Cliff Auerswald
I would definitely attend if I was there. This would make our moorings worthless and actually a burden! ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Newport Mooring Association
Date: Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM
Subject: Monday March 18th - Possible 10 fold increase to Shore Moorings - a $40,000 increase over 10 years
To:

Newport Mooring
,;i . �:, Association
13-335

Shore Moorings
now included in the Rate Hike!
Monday, March 18th at 5:00 pm
City Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Drive, New_port Beach, CA
Now on the agenda for Monday's Special Harbor Commission meeting is a recommendation for an increase on shore mooring rates. We do not know what their recommendation will be, however in the most recent staff report, they attached a document from 2022 which proposed the following rate increase. We need you to show up on Monday
7" 2
Rtcommended Onshofe Mooring RenW Rates
(MOnNy Rale per Linear Foot)
Recommended Rates
Phase 1. Phm 2:

July 2022 January 2023
Current Ron
$A-F
ZQ22 Rent
$1LF
$1.58
$1.61
510.00
$&DO
M
Read More
If the above chart is their recommendation, then that is a 10 times increase on what shore mooring folks are paying. In effect, that's a tax on people with shore moorings of about $40,000 over a ten year period and double that over 20 years. 13-336

Since any increase needs an appraisal, the Harbor Commission is using the now outdated Dec 2021 appraisal which is almost 2 1/2 years old, and which was presented to the former Harbor Commission. Attached is a summary of the staff report from January 2022 following the Netzer Appraisal.

We all thought this was put to bed with the former Harbor Commission. The recent Harbor Commission agenda for
January, 2024 only referenced the offshore moorings, and the only Netzer appraisal that has been under review and
discussion for the last 2 months has been the appraisal for the offshore moorings.

However it appears that over the last month or two, without sending out notice to the shore mooring permit holders, the Harbor Commission has attempted to sneak in a massive
increase in onshore moorings rates without a single stakeholder meeting and without any attempt to provide actual notice to these stakeholders to allow them to present relevant
information to this new commission.

All shore mooring permit owners, and their families need to attend the meeting on Monday, March 18 and let their voices be heard.

Join us at the Civic Center on Monday at 5:00 PM to stand with fellow mooring holders & residents of Orange County. The Harbor Commission is recommending a significant increase of 500% for all mooring holders, including On -Shore Moorings. Don't let this happen without having your voice heard. Come together in support.

The Harbor Commission is not recognizing the CBRE appraisal, provided by the NMA, and has doubled down on the severely flawed Netzer appraisal READ NIVIA Position CBRE Appraisal
Talking Points to Keep in mind - When Emailing
13-337

• A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
• Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more
compared to other permits. We already pay our fair share • Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina slips. Apples to oranges comparison
• The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer himself indicated it was unreliable to peg mooring rates to slip rates.
• Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is little access with no amenities
It's time for the City of Newport Beach to address the
long-standing discrimination & faulty Netzar appraisal
faced by Mooring Holders
O�O
Click here to email City Council

HOME OLDER NEWS MEMBERSHIP CONTACT US
13-338

Newport Mooring
Association
Become a member of NMA
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
Contact us at aii(cunewportmooringassociation.org
Newport Mooring Association I P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118 Unsubscribe mike0allreverse.com
Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
13-339

From: Michael Romo
Sent: March 17, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Unfair and exorbitant on -shore mooring rate increase JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content It is clear the City Council sees an opportunity to take advantage of on -shore mooring users with the proposed unfair and exorbitant on -shore mooring rate increase, knowing this action is being taken with no notice or supporting rationale. Users such as myself are willing pay to keep on -shore moorings maintained at our own expense; we get nothing from the City for our trouble. By maintaining our on- shore moorings we add to the nautical appeal of the Harbor when our watercraft are on the moorings.

If you drastically increase the fee per square foot, you will encourage mooring users to shorten their mooring lines. This will detract from the traditional appealing look of watercraft on on -shore mooring that has been a feature Balboa Island and other parts of Newport Harbor for generations. Shorter mooring lines will impede swimmers and make the beaches unsightly. But what other recourse will on- shore mooring users have if the rate is is increased 20x what it is now other than to shorten their mooring lines?
This is a bad idea and you know it. Find some other way to collect revenue.

MICHAEL J. ROMO
mikeromomq(cD_qmaiI.com
c: (415) 509-8304
13-340

From: Ronald Costabile
Sent: March 17, 2024 10:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: What my boat means to me.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

I'm 74 years old and have had a half dozen boats in my lifetime. I've lived in Newport since 1995 and after 10 years here, I decided I should have a boat in the harbor. I researched and decided it would be worthwhile, considering the economy and my retirement income. Considering the system, it was justified for me too go ahead and purchase a mooring permit. I agree with reasonable yearly increases that might keep up with CPI and other costs to support a vibrant Harbor. But now the City of Newport Beach has decided to rip the middle class into submission and jack up morning permit fees, and I know what the city is trying to do. The expression "if the government doesn't control it we can't have it", that's is what's happening here. It's undeniable. I bought a offshore morning and an onshore morning so I could have access. I paid $50,000 of my hard-earned saved lifetime savings knowing that when I no longer wanted to have a sailboat, I could trade the mooring and recover my investment and continue my retirement into my golden years. I know, and you know, and many others believe what the city is trying to do is to make the transferability nearly worthless which would give the city more control and power, and the ability to implement a plan to take over all financial avenues of transferability. I would not be able to afford any of this if fees increase beyond what is fair for the general boating public. The proposals that have been made are outrageous and cannot be supported by at least 75% of the boaters in our Harbor. I love to sail and I love the ocean and being able to do this is part of the American dream.

I do not own a home but I own a boat and you will take this away from me because I will not be no longer be able to afford to live this dream. The Netzler appraisal is not reality. It needs to be redressed and fairness needs to be the priority.

Thankyou
Mr Ronald Costabile
Mooring permittee owner. A285 and E12.
13-341

From: yaneav cohen
Sent: March 18, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Hike
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City of Newport Beach City council members
The proposed rate hike for the Newport Beach Harbor is inappropriate. The very fact that there is a hearing to consider such dramatic changes is unacceptable and goes against the very origin of the history of Newport Beach and the way Newport Beach was founded. The mooring slips with the accompanying boats in Newport Harbor are the quintessential identity of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed changes are about to destroy that very history. The only resolution that should be proposed is to protect the history and identity of the city of Newport Beach and pass a resolution guaranteeing the protection of the Harbor with max cap of 3.5% annual increase on the mooring permit holders.

Please be advised that any attempt to dramatically increase the rate of permit holders, who paid tens of thousands of dollars for a permit, would render a mass sell off of permits thereby significantly devaluing the value of the permit itself.

Your sincere attention into this matter, and how the permit holders play an important role in the very historical fabric of the City of Newport Beach is very much appreciated.

Sincerely,
Yaneav Cohen
13-342

From: Jared Perrin
Sent: March 18, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ,All-.

I am disappointed to hear that the Harbor Commission is moving forward with their unfair and unreasonabLe rate hike on mooring permittees. My understanding is that they are ignoring the findings of a CBRE appraisal (a househoLd name in the reaL estate industry) in favor of a fLawed appraisaL compLeted by Jim Netzer (who I had never heard of prior to this). I suspect many permittees are not yet aware of the magnitude of this proposed change, and a 500% hike will rightfuLLy be met with quite a bit of anger from a constituency who is intimately invoLved in the Newport Beach community.

Please push back on what the Harbor Commission is trying to put forward with regard to rate hikes on offshore moorings.

Thankyou,
Jared Perrin
Jared L. Perrin
Harvey & Company LLC
5000 Birch Street, Suite 8500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tet: 949-757-0400 ext. 1104
Fax: 949-757-0404
www.harveylic.com
perrin(a)harveyL[c.com
This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the authorized use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that is confidential and prohibited from disclosure to persons other than the intended add res see. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this item in error, please notify the original sender and destroy this item, along with any attachments. Thank you. 13-343

From: pbgoode@gmail-com
Sent: March 18, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We pay too much already to maintain our on shore mooring. PLEASE do NOT increase the rates. 13-344

From: Don Young
Sent: March 19, 2024 3:03 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring lease increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I tKFVAL UVIAIQ DO Imu I C= links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content My name Is Don Young. I am the permit holder of mooring F6 and P 82. 1 obtained my permits approximately 6 years ago and had prior permit on A222 for approximately 12 years prior. I signed my lease in good faith and have trusted the harbor commission to also use good faith in assessing mooring fees. My opinion and the opinions of a very large amount of mooring permit holders and non holders alike is that it appears to us that the member of the harbor commission are either non permit holders or if they were have sold the permits knowing that the increase was of a totally ridiculous nature and a total injustice to mooring permit holders. Government fee increases of any nature must be fair and just that is what the United States of America is all about. If anyone on any commission thinks a 500% increase is anywhere even remotely close to being fair they should perhaps seek to hold office in some third world country where Injustice runs rampant and the public is held hostage to such decisions made by government officials who have no concern or respect for they fellow man lam hoping that you who hold these positions of deciding what is fair use good common sense and vote against such a totally affair,injust and unsympathetic decision. Thank you for your time in reading this message as I sincerely hope you have. Don Young
13-345

From: Nick Ralston
Sent: March 20, 2024 8:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Indeed your selected hinch volunteers have the burden of an awful proposal. I don't care about their opinion. They are just your weasels. Take ownership. Take responsibility. You know that your dumbass governor is totally against our people in Newport. Hence the Ferry Law. Thanks for Terminal C at SNA for SWA to create another one of their small airport hubs. 3 to 5 times the flights of the major Airlines. No, that's not a carbon footprint. Great job. Get a clue. No votes from me unless you stop the nonsense.

Nick Ralston.
13-346

From: James Coleman
Sent: March 21, 2024 1:09 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Stop Mooring Gentrification
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
ItA I tKFVAL tFVIAILJ DO Imu I t-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content You must stop the mooring gentrification immediately!!
There will be a major effort to vote out aLL counciL members that support the insane rate increase.

Captain James Coleman
Mooring Permitee.
13-347

From: [email protected]
Sent: March 22, 2024 7:17 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I have one onshore mooring which has been in my family since it was first installed.

Please do not raise the rates so drastically- many of us who have faithfully maintained them and followed all the rules will suffer the mostH!
Sent from my Whone
13-348

From: tony forbes
Sent: March 23, 2024 3:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please Stop it!
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No mooring rate hikes!
Leave it alone it too expensive for people already.
13-349

From: Mark
Sent: March 30, 2024 2:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Come back to reality
Sent from my Whone
13-350

From: Jon Kosoff
Sent: March 31, 2024 9:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Stop the Outrageous Mooring rate hike!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Lcgo
Dear City Council,
As a Mooring owner I am ashamed and appalled what the Newport Harbor Commission is trying to do. This isn't fair or just in anyway, and is flat out completely wrong. It is discrimination, and we appreciate you reviewing the facts of this case.

Currently, the mooring holders pay 4 times more than the affluent waterfront homeowners for use of the same submerged tidelands. If the proposed rate increase goes through, the mooring holders will be paying up to 20 times more than the affluent waterfront homeowners pay, for use of the exact same tidelands. That's not fair and it clearly targets and discriminates against people with moorings.

In pushing this extreme discrimination, the city's Harbor Commission has completely ignored the January 2024 independent appraisal by CBRE which shows the city of Newport Beach's appraisal is way off base and does not even account for the lack of dinghy docks to get out to our moorings, when every other harbor in California provides dinghy docks to get out to a mooring. The independent CBRE appraisal, which is being ignored by the Harbor Commission, shows there is no need for any increase in excess of the CIPI.

Fortunately, the granting statute for Newport Bay has a specific clause prohibiting price discrimination in the harbor. This anti-d iscri m i nation clause regarding rates in Newport Harbor dates back to the early 1900's. It simply indicates, the city shall not charge one user more than another for the use of the tidelands. Unfortunately, this price discrimination is occurring today and will only be exacerbated ten fold if the proposed rate increase is tolerated by this Commission. Lest there be any doubt, the city code itself states that the people with moorings are to be charged rates similar to other rates charged for users of the tidelands. This clearly flies contrary to that code.

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

As Newport Beach Residents, we recently bought our mooring and saved a long time do to so. We plan on sharing it with our 3 children for a long time. It took us 3 years to find the mooring and we had to pay a Significant amount of money up front to buy the mooring. We did it the right way. And don't think it is fair for this proposed increase 13-351

which will crash the value of our investment. More importantly our ability to use the beautiful harbor with our family and friends.

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

I ask the City Council to please stop this madness. The SLC staff has been provided proof that the appraisal is flawed and the attempt to raise mooring rates up to 500% and higher for shore moorings, which will clearly push average boaters out of Newport Harbor while leaving the rates of other tidelands users alone. Discrimination can't be tolerated.

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

Thank you,
Jon Kosoff
949.309.9969
13-352

From: bgriffith sclfinance.com
Sent: April 01, 2024 2:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Newport Beach Mooring Increase -
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Hello City Council,
When considering the rate increase for the mooring holders, please consider the following.

I believe it is around 750 private pier permits that pay around $300k to the city compared to around 800 moorings that pay around $1.3 million.

This is where many believe that discrimination has taken place over the years. Please investigate why there is such a big difference in the fees.

Barbara
13-353

From: Pat and Bud C
Sent: April 03, 2024 11:24 AM
To: Marston, Marie; Blank, Paul; Yahn, Don; Williams, Gary; O'Neill, William; Harp, Aaron; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dept - City Council; Beer, Ira; Scully, Steve; Svrcek, Rudy; Cunningham, Scott Subject: Mooring Rate Increase Discussion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
April3,2024
To the Various Government Agencies Determining a Fair Rental Rate to be Charged the Mooring Permit Holders in Newport Beach Harbor,
As a permit holder of a mooring and a permitted live a board I would like you to consider three interpretations of a "fair and equitable" rental rate as opposed to the Netzer & Associates appraisal being considered by the Newport Harbor Commission.

The Merriam -Webster dictionary defines Fair Market Value as: a price at which buyers and sellers with a reasonable knowledge of pertinent facts and not acting under any compulsion are willing to do business.

My three rental price valuation reasoning considering this definition are:

The purely Capitalist approach which is "what the market will bear". This approach, I contend, is only what the Netzer appraisal and therefore the Newport Beach Harbor Commission is proposing. Fairness and equality are not considered, only at what rental rate that could be charged that would bring the most revenue while fulfilling a demand. Referring back to the definition of Market Value - not acting under compulsion, most present mooring holders will be compelled to pay the increase simply because they have too much invested in both the mooring and the vessel stored on it to decline. Some of that investment was that the city, in 2015, removed the waiting list to rent a mooring and made it official that one had to pay to a private party a sum agreed to by both parties to transfer that permit to the buyer. There was nothing nefarious, underhanded or illegal since then because it was the ONLY way to obtain a permit. It was what the city ruled would be the only way to become a mooring permit holder.

However, recently, at least one city council member has stated he "can't get my head around" the transfer process and is questioning the very rule his predecessors put in place and forced us to participate in. By losing our transfer equity it seems we are being punished for something we had no choice in.

Another thought is on Fairness. In early 2018 the then harbor commission considered an appraisal done by the same company, Netzer & Associates, and they then established mooring rental rates. It was stated the rates shall be raised according to CPI. Since then, inflation (CPI) has been about 28% or a 3.5% yearly average. Knowing this and considering our finances at the time and reasonable future 13-354

expectations, we bought a boat we could comfortably live on and would be proud of. What can possibly be fair about an unexpected 400% plus increase? The appraisal's comparable marinas have not increased that much, nothing has. What has changed in the time between the two appraisals that makes this huge increase fair?
The third possibility would be equality. As a couple on a fixed income we do not have the extra wealth to invest that could make us wealthy. The mooring holders around me are teachers, a firefighter, a retired Newport Beach sheriff department employee, numerous veterans, at least two harbor employees, numerous local tourism workers, etc. These working people are lucky if their incomes have kept up with inflation. The majority of the approximate 48 live a boards are retired on a fixed income. In todays economy, generally, only the wealthy get wealthier and many of the wealthy can pay the Marina's rising prices (again, no where's near 400%). Marinas are private, for profit entities who's goal is to make as much income as it can, the city is not. Is it equality that the non -wealthy mooring holders go up even more? Meanwhile, the homeowners along the harbor's shoreline pay considerably less than the mooring holders for only their pier sq. ft. not even for the vessels moored on the piers. They use far more of the tidelands for far less with no increase proposed. Plus they can rent out the area they're not using and profit 20 times what they pay out. Absolute inequality! The following is direct from title 17 — the Harbor Code

17.05.090 Local Coastal Program.

C. Where applicable, development in Newport Harbor shall:

2. Provide a variety of berthing opportunities reflecting State and regional demand for slip size and affordability throughout Newport Harbor;

4. Protect shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor.

The other numbered lines 5 thru 8 all use the expression "expand and enhance" various public harbor facilities such as dinghy docks, pump out stations, etc. none of which has changed since the code was written, adding to the question of why the huge increase? To sum up. In a pure commercial sense, charging whatever can be charged that would create as much revenue as possible might be fair but would not be fair if it goes against the very principles that is stated in it's own Code of purpose and, just as important, the city of Newport Beach is not a commercial enterprise. It's stated goal is affordability but the perception in the mooring community is the city wants to cleanse the moorings of the poor. If you cannot afford these higher rates, they don't want you. If many of the existing mooring permit holders, the non -wealthy "common working people", the teachers, veterans, firefighters, retirees, leave are they the poor? Would that make it unafforclable for them yet, somehow, still within the cities "affordable" goal? If wealthier people replace them, is it proven to be affordable again? Is that equitable?
With careful planning we are financially secure but on a fixed income. Had we expected such an increase before we obtained our permit we would have done things financially different. I feel we had made a handshake agreement with the city and the city is going against it, doing so extremely unreasonably. If my wife and I decide to remain paying the increase because we have too much to lose by leaving (like numerous others), does that mean a 400% increase is fair and equitable? If other comparable uses of 13-355

the tide lands is paying considerably less for essentially the same usage but with more convenience and amenities, is that equality?
Please consider the view point of myself, a retired blue-collar machinist but a viewpoint that I am confident echoes the majority of mooring permit holders in Newport Harbor.

Sincerely, Herman (Bud) Coomans
Mooring H-813
13-356

From:

John Rogers
Sent:

April 10, 2024 9:41 AM
To:

Dept - City Council
Cc:

Cindi Rogers; Blank, Paul; Bill Seals
Subject:

Proposed rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear council,
Regarding the proposed rates increase for individual mooring owner:

The harbor commission has ignored a second appraisal and is using one that was completed by someone who is not truthful and has other interest which he represents with the City - His bases for the increase ignored the fact the Yacht club members who pay more for moorings receive numerous additional services for their money - Secure Parking - wash down capability - charging access - shore boat service - storm protection (they have crews that monitor their mooring field during storms) Also help with Sea Lion issues- none of these aforementioned items are being offered with the proposed rate increase? They propose to raise the rates 5x without any benefits in serving the individual mooring owners while segregating them from other tidelands users - commercial moorings, dock owners and on shore mooring owners -
All of this is going to limit access to our children to enjoy the harbor in the future - It's wrong on so many levels! The city does not need to single out one segment of tideland users.

Treat people fairly please! Don't abuse your power!
Resident for 60 years!
John Rogers
540 De Anza Drive
Corona Del Mar, 92626
John Rogers
130 E. Alton Ave.

Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-824-3780
13-357

From: R Jacks
Sent: April 10, 2024 2:44 PM
To: Harbor Commission; [email protected]; Dept - City Council; Admin
Subject: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
unless you recognize the sender and know the content
SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM —

A PLAN THAT WILL ASSURE CURRENT MOORINGS ARE ALWAYS NEATLY POSITIONED Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Ira Beer's double mooring system was proposed as a means of making order out of the currently haphazard location of moorings. It will be expensive to execute and it's obvious the current effort to 5X our mooring fees is the city's solution to cover the cost for this potentially awkward and dangerous project.

I've attended all the hearings regarding the double mooring system. My concern, beyond its impracticality, is that it will be subject to the same disarrangement as the current fields because of the sloppy way mooring balls are repositioned when being extracted for servicing and then repositioned.

For example: My mooring in B field (B-43) has been repositioned 25 feet away from where it was 11 years ago, just by routine servicing.

SOLUTION:

I'd like to propose the following for consideration:

Mooring balls in each field should be correctly reconfigured to their original plan, then mapped by engineers who would assign precise, survey -quality GPS location numbers (latitude and longitude) to each mooring ball within the field. This is the same method surveyors and engineers use to determine the corner markers for land parcels and lots.

To reposition each mooring ball to its correct position, workers would follow the newly engineered map by using a Handheld Survey GPS to properly reposition each mooring ball. They simply find the correct location by matching the GPS numbers for each ball to its reading on the handheld device. These devices are accurate to within one inch and are available on Amazon for less than $200.

Thereafter, maintenance workers would simply use the Handheld Survey GPS to correctly position mooring balls after each service. This would be a very simple and inexpensive way to keep the fields in proper order.

ADVANTAGES
13-358

The above method would make the proposed double mooring system unnecessary. The solution above:
• Organizes the current fields into geometric order and maintains them that way. • Does not require testing for its feasability.
• Does not interfere with the tried-and-true methods boaters have successfully used to attach and detach from moorings during hazardous conditions.
e Would not subject the city to liabilities should boaters encounter problems with the proposed, and unproven double mooring system.
e Could be implemented at a small fraction of the cost of the proposed double mooring system.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

1. Engineering costs for the proper layout for each mooring field. This will have to be done, anyway, for the double mooring system.

2. Costs for repositioning the current moorings according to the newly engineered plans, with GPS coordinates, would be significantly less than constructing the complex and dangerously cramped double mooring system.

SUMMARY
Assigning survey -quality GPS coordinates to each mooring ball, then having maintenance workers use a handheld Survey GPS to locate exact positions would assure proper placement after servicing. Mooring fields would always be orderly, safe, and maintain adequate room to maneuver when leaving or arriving at a mooring thus eliminating liability issues.

And finally, the above method could save millions of dollars by eliminating the proposed double mooring system that mooring holders neither want or trust.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Jacks
Mooring: B-43
949 335-2324
[email protected]
13-359

From: Beer, Ira
Sent: April 10, 2024 4:12 PM
To: R Jacks; Harbor Commission; [email protected]; Dept - City Council; Admin
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Jacks,
Thank you for your comments related to various initiatives undertaken by the Newport Harbor Commission. First, I would like to assure you the study for determination of fair market rents of onshore and offshore moorings is in no way connected to the initiative relating to the optimization of the existing mooring fields via a pilot test at one mooring field location.

In addressing your comments related to the mooring rental rates, the City of Newport Beach must charge fair market rates for use of public tidelands held in trust for the state of California.

Charging less than fair market ratesfor the use and occupation ofgranted sovereign land may constitute an unconstitutional gift ofpublicfunds and a violation of the City'sfiduciary duties to the state. There is a Harbor Commission meeting this evening at 5pm at the Civic Center where the Commission will review the matter for a recommendation to City Council. I encourage you to attend and provide comments during the public comment period for this agendized item.

With respect to the mooring optimization initiative, there has been much public outreach over a three-year period addressing your comments and concerns. You may access all those records on the city website. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you again for taking the time to provide your comments.

Best regards,
Harbor Cum missioner
Lbetr
(SL49)
From: R Jacks
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 2:51 PM
To: Harbor Commission ,
roberto.uranga(a)coastaL.ca.gov , Dept - City Council
, Admin
Subject: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM
13-360

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED DOUBLE MOORING SYSTEM —

A PLAN THAT WILL ASSURE CURRENT MOORINGS ARE ALWAYS NEATLY POSITIONED Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Ira Beer's double mooring system was proposed as a means of making order out of the currently haphazard location of moorings. It will be expensive to execute and it's obvious the current effort to 5X our mooring fees is the city's soLution to cover the cost for this potentiaLLy awkward and dangerous project.

I've attended aLL the hearings regarding the doubLe mooring system. My concern, beyond its impracticaLity, is that it wiLL be subject to the same disarrangement as the current fieLds because of the sLoppy way mooring baLLs are repositioned when being extracted for servicing and then repositioned.

For exampLe: My mooring in B fieLd (B-43) has been repositioned 25 feet away from where it was 11 years ago, just by routine servicing.

SOLUTION:

I'd like to propose the foLLowing for consideration:

Mooring balls in each field shouLd be correctly reconfigured to their original plan, then mapped by engineers who would assign precise, survey-quaLity GPS location numbers (latitude and longitude) to each mooring ball within the fieLd. This is the same method surveyors and engineers use to determine the corner markers for Land parcels and lots.

To reposition each mooring ball. to its correct position, workers wouLd fottow the newLy engineered map by using a Handheld Survey GPS to property reposition each mooring baLL.

They simply find the correct location by matching the GPS numbers for each baLL to its reading on the handhe[d device. These devices are accurate to within one inch and are available on Amazon for Less than $200.

Thereafter, maintenance workers would simply use the Handheld Survey GPS to correctLy position mooring baLLs after each service. This would be a very simpLe and inexpensive way to keep the fields in proper order.

ADVANTAGES
The above method would make the proposed double mooring system unnecessary. The soLution above:
13-361

• Organizes the current fields into geometric order and maintains them that way. • Does not require testing for its feasability.
• Does not interfere with the tried-and-true methods boaters have successfully used to attach and detach from moorings during hazardous conditions. * Would not subject the city to Liabilities should boaters encounter problems with the proposed, and unproven double mooring system.
* Could be implemented at a small fraction of the cost of the proposed double mooring system.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

1. Engineering costs for the proper Layout for each mooring field. This will have to be done, anyway, for the double mooring system.

2. Costs for repositioning the current moorings according to the newly engineered plans, with GPS coordinates, would be significantly Less than constructing the complex and dangerously cramped double mooring system.

SUMMARY
Assigning survey -quality GPS coordinates to each mooring ball, then having maintenance workers use a handheld Survey GPS to locate exact positions would assure proper placement after servicing. Mooring fields would always be orderly, safe, and maintain adequate room to maneuver when Leaving or arriving at a mooring thus eliminating liability issues.

And finally, the above method could save millions of dollars by eliminating the proposed double mooring system that mooring holders neither want or trust.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Jacks
Mooring: B-43
949 335-2324
[email protected]
13-362

From: Sandy Manich
Sent: April 11, 2024 4:00 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Dock owner settlement
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Why are you targeting moorings and not docks?
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Phone
13-363

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ludgate
11, 2024 4:23 PM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
&.-, k e, a V, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Mooring rate increased
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

How can this be ?
Would someone be kind enough to explain the logic ? Or thought process where the council thought this was a reasonable and fair action ?
The courtesy of an actual response would be appreciated and appropriate Paul
13-364

From: [email protected]
Sent: April 19, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Harbor Vote
Attachments: Harbor Commission january 2024.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
nks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know Newport Beach Council Members, Honorable Mayor, Good morning, If it's not too late I have more to add to my concerns. Attached you will remember my last two correspondences, January 29th and February 6th email below regarding the mooring fees and attempt to increase those monthly cost by method of independent appraisal set forth by Netzer & Associates. I have been informed that the appraisal was not independent and created by a company affiliated with other projects in Newport Beach. The emails, correspondence and alleged involvement by this and other company's connected to our City concerns me. I am also informed the City Atorney has also been apprised of this concern outlined by a group of dissenters. I am not just against the discriminatory way this is being handled but also concerned that the impact will have lasting financial burden on so many of the mooring permittees some on fixed incomes. I ask you to vote NO on any increase in fees other than those currently being assessed annually by the consumer price index. There are solutions to consider regarding the budget shortfall experienced by the Harbor Department. Here are some to consider that would assist in reaching the revenue needed to operate.
1) Provide a parking permit for mooring permits to 1 dinghy for access to be tied to a public pier. That cost could be assessed to $300 annually. This fee provides services and can be a way to increase revenue by $1S0,000 annually. 2) Create a metered parking area on public piers that much like a auto will need to apply by the parking apps for non -annual permit holders 3) Assess the vacancy factor of the marina park area and offer out of season prices to increase the revenue from visitors who pass up Newport Harbor because of high fees. This offseason value can increase the marine attendance and create a revenue at 50% discounts where the existing vacancy provides zero revenue. 4) Raise the dock fees across the board to waterfront properties to a minimum rate to meet mooring fees. Without any impact to mooring fees just that alone will meet the expectation necessary to accommodate the budget shortfall for operations. 5) Cut overhead cost shortfalls in the budget by 20% and monitor spending more closely in all aspects of the Newport Harbor areas. The savings is over 800,000. 13-366

6) Apply a maintenance cost to the existing vessels on moorings. Those vessels in disrepair will be assessed a fee monthly if not in line with the Harbor Departments minimum floating guidelines of operations and cleanliness. 7) Propose a committee to create water events whereas contestants pay a fee to enter sports and boating events that all the entry fees assist with harbor efficiencies. 8) 1 am sure there are many other creative opportunities that could be discussed to meet that expectation of revenue.

The City can afford new bridges to nowhere probably not used often but pretty, library extended conference centers for 299 seats when those seats are available already in many venues and new fancy community entry signs replacing ones that were just fine for areas in Newport Beach. The City can afford to find other ways to raise money for the shortfalls if we have millions to spend on these projects. In closing I am asking the City Council to vote NO on the additional fee assessment not only from the bias appraisal methods but because it's the right thing to do.

Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.

Newport Beach, CA 92661
Mooring H-210
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: mooring fees
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members,
Attached is my written disapproval of the Harbor Commissions appraisal and overview of the existing mooring evaluation and fee proposal. In my written disapproval I itemize many different objections and opinions regarding the appraisal utilizing yacht clubs as a comparable giving value to ways to increase fees to mooring permittees. This email is not disparaging to anyone specific nor intended to be combative in nature but simply to express my complete and utter disappointment in the ways which our City is attempting to impound, repossess or create default for many mooring permittees. It is my intention, to support any and all means of opposition to this usury fee assessment that could impact so many residents, including myself a permittee H-210 and visitors. I have been in favor of finding ways to minimize the area by testing bow to bow mooring designs. I have also been in favor of many harbor initiatives but this is not one I will support. The commissions attempt to find ways to support this idea of fee increase is unconscionable and totally usury in my opinion. The way it has been done annually to date is in compliance with cost of living increases and should remain reasonable.

As a side comment: Moorings are a historic monument in our Harbor. Newport is a safe haven for boating where many, not just rich, can enjoy the benefits we provide through this 13-367

offshore and onshore mooring permits. I sincerely hope that the City will NOT vote in agreement to raise the fees and impact the permittees along with the values associated with those permits.

Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.

Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210
13-368

January 29, 2024
Harbor Commission
Harbor Department
City of Newport Beach
CC: Mooring Permittees
CC: Liveaboards
RE: Offshore and Onshore Mooring Fees
The appraisal report by Netzer & Associates uses all the techniques apparent in determining fair market value of real property. The mathematical, applied principals and compilation although true for residential and commercial type properties is used in every day review of real property and not designed to determine water buoys. This MAI assessment of per linear foot rental can be adjusted subjectively attempting to use those generally accepted methods of finding value around the math given two components using the Balboa Yacht Club and Newport Harbor Yacht Clubs rates. In as much as those rates might appear reasonable in their appraisal, the affordability and management of those mooring fields is not comparable to other areas within the Newport Harbor mooring system.

With only 1 selected appraiser of 4 that applied, applying subjective mathematics, it is apparent that the Harbor Commission is reaching for ways to support the rates they are looking for or at least would prefer to approve through this approach. Housing has become unaffordable, residential rentals have become unaffordable, fuel and groceries are more expensive in Newport Beach, insurances more expensive, and now the commission has seen a potential gold mine of opportunity to place permittees in default.

Some facts to 12onder:
1) Some Permittee owners have been in place for over 50 years. 2) Mooring fields are similar however many are 2 ball systems not swing moorings. 3) Chain Weight and floats are similar.
4) Values and equity are similar.
5) Repairs are the burden of the permittee.
6) Yacht club tenants are rentals not permittees with equity.

Important Facts to consider identified and not identified in Netzer & Associates Appraisal: (these are not bad items just not compara "Ie 1) Yacht club mooring fields are private members only.
2) Yacht clubs have a waiting list creating supply and demand value. 3) Supply and demand create higher price for members, non -owners. 4) Yacht club mooring fields have members who generally can afford the cost for XG I'Mr.] 11 Da 110ra
5) Yacht clubs control the mooring fields in their area. 1 13-369

6) Yacht clubs have mooring tender services.
7) Yacht clubs have facilities within the site of each mooring with similar members as neighbors.
8) Yacht club moorings have no visible unattended or nonfunctioning vessels. 9) The surrounding view is much better.
10)Yacht clubs have parking and common interest with its mooring fields. 1 1)Yacht clubs rent for profit. Permittees cannot rent for profit.

Impact on mooring permittees:
1) Unaffordable to most.
2) Live aboard persons will be impacted severely.
3) Approximately 579 non yacht club offshore moorings impacted. 4) Approximately 80-90% of those S79 will be adjusted unaffordable. 5) Equity will be impacted at rush to sell Permits.
6) Many permittees will default.
7) Unfair with no services, no shuttle.
8) Mooring fields have no low-income or fixed affordable area designations. a. If identified as comparable to real property then all the ADA and Low Income and affordability law components need to be addressed. Including Veteran's Groups who are owners.

Impact and why is anyone's guess?
1) City & departments looking for income to pay for Library meeting halls or other venues.
2) City & departments looking for money to pay for mooring field reduction and mooring adjustments to bow -to -bow system presently being reviewed in Mooring Field C. 3) City & departments forces many to sell and or not renew permits. Places a huge burden on fixed income owners and permittees to sell.
4) Many reasons can be perceived.

Comparable Methods:

Using a waterfront property in comparison cannot be applicable to the appraisal. Waterfront property with pier and dock provides access and conveniences beyond that of a mooring field. The one most valuable waterfront benefit is that a home owner with a slip, dock and pier, have the right, to rent their water space at a rate of 60-$80 dollars a foot therefore receiving great benefits for that right in excess of the pier head line by the width of the float or width of the vessel providing encroachment into the common traffic space by up to 20 plus feet of benefit. Mooring permittees have no rights to rental nor benefits to access but the burden of all the maintenance with zero services attributed to a homeowner's waterfront connection. Therefore, the cost, value, comparable, rental, income approach to land facilities has no commonality.
2 13-370

Summary:

Yacht club members for the most part have the financial capabilities to pay the rates outlined for the conveniences and location within the yacht club venues. There is a premium for location. The fees charged are not for ownership of the permit but a pure rental to the yacht club with the tenant having no permit rights to transferability. It is a waiting list and pure economic supply and demand issue with yacht clubs having waiting list to the members. Will the yacht clubs be increasing their rates due to the City and Harbor Departments proposal? Maybe to $30 per linear foot? Interesting to see their take on the question.

As a matter of interest; At the meeting there were discussions overheard of members, off microphone by many in attendance, discussing how to deal with the fees proposal as a sidebar way to raise rates but without comment. It seems the old sales tool of hit um high and settle them low is in place but still usury in my opinion.

I am not in favor of impacting many with such an egregious increase outlined in the evaluation. I feel its usury and by the nature of its appraisal subjective even though well outlined it is not a pure scientific method of approach since the values set by yacht clubs are not values of ordinary people. It is discriminatory and leads to impacting those who are grandfathered in, who have been there for years because its reasonable and will now be faced with no way to maintain their presence in Newport Beach as a boating enthusiast.

Although I am in favor of cleaning up the harbor in ways to eliminate unsightly vessels and maintain the beauty of Newport Harbor, but to impact 1000 or more people or families like this is unfair and needs to be cancelled as a Harbor initiative. Reasonable rates are in place today and updated annually to meet the expectations of the cost of living.

Tom lovenitti
T'OTW Iovenittt/
142 5 W Bay Ave.

Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210 Mooring
[email protected]
13-371

From: Carter Harrington
Sent: April 22, 2024 12:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don't raise mooring rates. It's unfair. Please comment on the objective CBRE appraisal.

Carter Harrington.
13-372

From: Winner1436
Sent: April 22, 2024 4:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increases
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
hello
i am sure you have received lots of input on mooring rate increases here is an additional issue you may not have been informed which seems very unfair.

I am a mooring holder
If my mooring is not used for a period of time - the city has the right to rent my mooring for a large fee and they retain the money.

And during this time- I must also pay the city the normal ongoing fee But a dock holder can rent the space in the water to who ever he wants for whatever fee they want and they receive all of the income.

The city receives none of this income
where is the equity in this??
I am in total agreement with all of the comments which you are receiving from numerous mooring holders about the astronomical proposed fee increases with no changes to current very low dock fees and do not need to repeat those concerns. thank you
Philip Lowry
13-373

From: Sandy Manich
Sent: April 22, 2024 6:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I tKFVAL tFVIAILJ DO Imu I t-LICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content How dare you?!
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Phone
13-374

From: Lynda Barraca-howard
Sent: April 22, 2024 6:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate hikes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City council, I ask that you reconsider the unfair rate hikes being proposed. The mooring I have has beer in the family for 3 generations and not being a part of this community for my entire life, it would greatly impact our family. We would most likely have to give up the mooring and thus our small boat because we are not a "new" islander and don't have the finances to absorb the 500% increase. Inflation is one thing; this is gouging.

Blessings, Lynda
13-375

From: Steven Legere
Sent: April 22, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Rateincrease
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Totally unfair looks like a money grab
Sent from my Whone
13-376

From:
[email protected]
Sent:

April 23, 2024 8:18 AM
To:

Dept - City Council
Subject:

Stop the Discrimination in the Harbor of Newport Beach Now! Follow Up Flag:

Follow up
Flag Status:

Flagged
JtA I tKFMAL tFV1A1LFVV1T0T-=K links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Newport Beach City Council Stop the Madness in the Harbor now! These 5 reasons point our why you should not move forward with a rate increase for Mooring permit holders in Newport Beach:
1 . A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable

2. Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more compared to other permits. We already pay our fair share

3. Netzer appraisal pegs mooring rates to full -service marina slips. Apples to oranges comparison

4. The Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer himself indicated it was unreliable to peg mooring rates to slip rates.

5. Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is little access with no amenities
Price Discrimination in Rates Charged by the City
Wealthy Waterfroid Dock- Periwil Average Joe Mooring Permit ays $30 a month Will pay $480 a rrnio
q -
7 he G Ity wl I I be forel ng mooring permittees to pay I 5x for the sanve peirmilt In the same harbor
13-377

From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: April 23, 2024 6:04 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: I sold my boat already, my mooring is next for sale. Re: April 23, 2024 Public Comment, Agenda Item# 14, Rents/Fines/Fees/
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Pit Kaz
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 6:03:57 PIVI (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Ad lever
Cc: City Clerk's Office ; O'Neill, William
; Stapleton, Joe ; Avery, Brad
; Weigand, Erik ; Grant, Robyn
; Blom, Noah ; Kleiman, Lauren
; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal ;
Kate. [email protected] ; Karl. [email protected] ; Ca[[email protected] ;
Linda. [email protected] ; Susan. Lowenberg(d)coastal.ca.gov ; [email protected]

Subject: I sold my boat already, my mooring is next for sale. Re: April 23, 2024 Public Comment, Agenda Itern# 14, Rents/Fines/Fees/
XTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content JM6
Hello Adam Lever,
First of all, thank you for providing detailed information. We all appreciate your hard work and dedication in this important and crucial matter for the mooring permittee and live -bearers.

Second, I sold my boat on Monday (yesterday) as the result of unprecedented mooring rate hikes. I am in the process/debate of selling my mooring if the discriminatory and unjustified hikes are passed by the city.

Last, our moorings practically will be worthless after couple years (rate hikes).

We are not looking for miracles or handouts but I wish we had someone to listen and look at our provided documents. The conflict of interest in provided appraisal by harbor commission (the back and forth email and tights). and why they are not looking at independent/3rd party appraisal. So many things to be aware of. Just tired and ready to give but still have my hopes " Best regards,
Peter Kaz
9493397737
13-378

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 1:20 PM Ad lever wrote:

Good day all,
Please find that attached, for your review and consideration.

Take care,
Adam Leverenz
13-379

From: Shaun P McCray
Sent: April 23, 2024 6:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Harbor and Mooring Rate Increases Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
LF-J% I F-n1vm1L F-Ivl- r_�K 11FIFb UF dLLdU1F11t:!1 I us unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the proposed harbor code changes and mooring rate increases that are set to be voted on during the upcoming City Council meeting on May 23rd, 2023.

As a concerned citizen and a mooring permit holder, I urge you to consider the following points before making any decisions that would significantly impact the boating community:

1. Safety Concerns:

The proposed double -row mooring configuration poses serious safety risks to both vessels and individuals. The lack of a comprehensive test plan, as highlighted by the Newport Mooring Association (NMA), is deeply concerning. Safety should be the top priority, and any changes must undergo rigorous testing to ensure the well-being of all harbor users.

2. Unnecessary Taxpayer Expense:

The allocation of $410,000 for a pilot test in the C field is unjustifiable, especially considering the lack of clarity surrounding the need for such a drastic reorganization of the mooring field. Taxpayer funds should not be squandered on projects that are not thoroughly vetted and proven to be necessary.

3. Lack of Preliminary Testing:

It is perplexing why the City is not utilizing its own inventory of moorings for preliminary testing before proposing significant harbor code changes. The absence of such tests raises doubts about the validity of the proposed alterations and undermines trust in the decision -making process.

4. Rushed Code Changes:

The request for harbor code revisions before the completion of the pilot test is premature and reckless. Making changes without concrete evidence of success sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to irreversible consequences for the boating community.

5. Ambiguity Regarding Permit Transferability:

The ambiguity surrounding the transferability of mooring permits adds unnecessary confusion and uncertainty for permit holders. Clear and transparent guidelines should be established to ensure fairness and equity in the permit transfer process.
13-380

6. Flawed Comparison to America's Cup Harbor:

Importing the double -row mooring concept from America's Cup Harbor, where tidal currents are significantly weaker, is ill-advised. The unique conditions of Newport require tailored solutions that prioritize safety and usability over mere replication of other harbor layouts.

Furthermore, I strongly oppose the proposed mooring rate increases for the following reasons:
- The proposed rate hike of up to 500% is exorbitant and unjustifiable. - Mooring permit holders already bear a disproportionately high financial burden compared to other permit holders.
- The Netzer appraisal's comparison of mooring rates to full -service marina slips is flawed and does not accurately reflect the value proposition of mooring permits. - The lack of amenities and limited access associated with mooring permits warrants heavy discounts, rather than steep rate increases.

In conclusion, I urge the City Council to prioritize the safety and well-being of the boating community, reconsider the proposed harbor code changes and mooring rate increases, and engage in transparent and inclusive decision -making processes.

Sincerely,
Shaun P. McCray
Mooring H36 / Zephyrus
627.590.5271
13-381

From: Barbara
Sent: April 24, 2024 9:49 AM
To: Stapleton, Joe; Dept - City Council; [email protected]; Leung, Grace; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Concern Newport Beach Resident - CC Orange County Registered - Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
attachments unless you
Hello City Council
I attended the meeting last night and observed the multitude of issues and their complexities that the City Council must address. My concern lies in the challenge of a group of seven individuals fully comprehending all these intricate matters. It is evident to me now how the process unfolds: your staff members, including the Harbor Commission, furnish you with information, which you then deliberate upon and make decisions.

Allow me to express, in a respectful manner, that some of these messages, originating from certain staff members and the Harbor Commission, may carry inherent biases, thereby potentially overlooking the concerns voiced by the people.

Here are some recommendations put forth by a group of residents: ( Start a petition)
The city should relinquish its ambassadorship in managing the harbor. Perhaps the county or state should oversee, given their deeper understanding of the issues and their commitment to listening to the community's voice
0 particularly regarding the discrimination surrounding moorings.
13-382

Engage an independent forensic company to thoroughly examine the operations of your staff, including the Harbor Commission. This would entail scrutinizing emails and any instances of favoritism, ensuring transparency and impartiality in decision -making processes. ( starting with The Netzer Company)
Many residents in Newport Beach believe that there's something significantly wrong with the messengers delivering information to the City Council.

While I have faith that you, as a democratically elected group of seven, working to act fairly, it is essential to acknowledge that the rapid growth of our city necessitates accurate and unbiased information for informed decision -making is important to.

Thank you,
Barbara
Resident of Newport Beach
714-623-4141
13-383

Additional Material Received - Public Comments
May 8, 2024 Harbor Commission Meeting
Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting 05/08/2024 - Public Comment I have concern that The Harbor Commission vote of April 1 Oth, recommending offshore mooring rent increases ranging from 300, to over 500%, suffers from deficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Leverenz
[email protected]
13-384

From: Sally Peterson
Shore Mooring Permittee
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
In anticipation of the Harbor Commission Mooring Rate Recommendations appearing on your agenda soon, I send you my thoughts on the rate for the unique shore moorings.

There has been a lot of data presented regarding the offshore moorings. Shore (or "Onshore") Moorings are quite different and should be addressed separately.

RE: SHORE MOORING RATE ERRORS and REVISED LOOK AT SLIP -TO -MOORING RATIO - Flawed 2022 Shore Mooring appraisal conclusion was 12 times the current rate! - Any use of the Slip -to -Mooring Ratio for Shore Moorings should be adjusted for:
- Size —Rate for a wider, longer slip was used - Requiring a downward adjustment of 28% -Use Restriction - Electric Boats have created huge demand and higher rates for small slips - Electric Boats cannot use Shore Moorings
Historic Shore Mooring rate at 50% of Offshore Rate may still be the correct methodology.

Slip -to -Mooring Ratio for Offshore Moorings should be revised, using "Like for Like" comparison which yields a 14% ratio. (pg. 3)
RECENT HISTORY of SHORE MOORING RENT RECOMMENDATION
In 2022, an appraisal of the shore moorings was prepared for the Harbor Commission. The appraiser concluded that the rents should increase to $360 per month. This proposal was 12 times the current $30.06 per month rate.

Common sense tells you something is wrong. Rather than order another appraisal, the Harbor Commission held numerous meetings, but ultimately the subject was dropped from the Harbor Commission agendas. Then, in January 2024, the Harbor Commission presented an appraisal (same appraiser) for offshore moorings. Again, numerous meetings were held. It wasn't until the end of this process that the Harbor Commission presented their recommended numbers for shore moorings, using the same analysis as for the offshore moorings. This is simple, but WRONG.

I don't feel that this methodology is right for shore moorings, but if the Slip to Mooring Ratio is to be used, once the flaws in the methodology (addressed later) are corrected, additional adjustments need to be made to the shore mooring analysis as there are significant differences between the shore moorings and the offshore moorings.

SIZE ADJUSTMENT FOR SHORE MOORINGS
Uniquely, the shore mooring has not only a length restriction but also a beam limit. By Code, the maximum boat length is 18 feet and beam is 8 feet. Offshore mooring boat lengths cannot exceed the designated length of the mooring, but Offshore Moorings have no beam limit. And the rents for all offshore mooring lengths was derived by a comparison to Balboa Yacht Basis (BYB) slips of the same length as each offshore mooring lengths. Because the BYB does not have 18 foot slips, the Harbor Commission incorrectly used the rate for 20 foot slips. The typical 20 foot slip can hold a boat with a 10 foot beam (according to the California Department of Boating and Waterways Design Guidelines and BYB staff). Using this Slip to Mooring Ratio, to accurately derive a rate for the shore mooring's size restriction, a size adjustment must be made:

Shore Mooring Size — Maximum 18 x 8 = 144 S.F.

BYB 20 foot Slip 20 x 10 = 200 S.F.

Difference = -28%
13-385

DEMAND/LIMITED USE FOR SHORT MOORINGS
A review of the chart of rental rates shows that the 20 foot rate per linear foot is disproportionately high. This is due to the high demand for these small sizes by the big users in this Harbor — electric boats.

Unique to all other mooring types, during low tides, boats on shore moorings are grounded. This prevents the use of most boats during this time. And of significance, because of potential damage, this prevents the mooring of boats with a keel and/or in -water rudder and props (electric boats +). And, of course, there is no electricity to charge a boat on a shore mooring. Thus, this high slip rate for shorter slips that is driven by electric boat use in the Harbor does not transfer to shore moorings and applying the same ratio as used for larger offshore moorings is inappropriate. At best, a large downward adjustment should be made. Historically, the shore mooring rate was 50% of the offshore rate. Taking into consideration the square footage adjustment (-28%) and the limitation of the boats (No Electric Boats +) that can be moored on shore moorings, the prior use of the 50% discount might be applied to the 25-foot offshore rate to derive the rent for shore moorings.

OTHER SHORE MOORING RENT ANALYSES
Direct COMDarison
Though there are not other shore moorings like Newport's in Southern California, there are three other tidelands uses of small boat storage — Mission Bay Beach Bars, Alamitos Bay Sand Stakes and Santa Barbara West Beach. A more detailed summary of these comparables and the calculations are presented on page 4. In brief, applying a location adjustment derived by comparing the average rate for 25' slips in each harbor as compared to Newport Beach, the concluded rate by Direct Comparison is $3.75/if/mo., or 48% of the proposed rent for 25 foot moorings.

Ratio to Offshore
As previously discussed, historically, the Shore Mooring Rate was calculated as a percentage of the Offshore Rate — 50%. Since the rent is for tidelands area used, and shore moorings have a beam restriction that the Offshore moorings do not, the 50% difference represented the difference in beam, or the total potential tidelands per linear foot used. The percentage was derived by dividing the maximum beam allowed for shore moorings by the widest beam for 20 to 30 foot production boats (Boats.corn survey).

CONCLUSION
Again, please realize that Shore Moorings are unique due to beam restrictions and the grounding of boats during lowticle. Adjustments must be made for this uniqueness. If the final decision is to use a CORRECTED Slip to Mooring ratio,
A rate of 50% of the 25-foot offshore concluded rent should be used for Shore Moorings 2 13-386

SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE SLIP TO MOORING ANALYSIS IN DERIVING OFFSHORE RATIO Since all other tidelands uses in the Harbor use the State Lands Commission methodology, I do feel that this is the appropriate methodology for moorings.

However, if the Slip to Mooring Ratio is to be used, proper methodology needs to be applied to support the ratio used. Please remember that once a ratio is adopted, the errors in the current rent recommendation made will be hard to reverse and will be compounded year after year. The fact that the Harbor Commission adjusted the appraiser's recommendations indicate that they saw flaws in the analysis. The flaws are more significant than indicated by the Harbor Commission conclusions.

All involved have looked at the data many times and in many ways to determine what the problem is, but have consistently worked with the appraiser's analysis. After looking at his data many, many times, it is my conclusion that the significant issue that impacts everything is that the appraiser was inconsistent in the use of his data. For some harbors, he used an average rent, while others he used the highest possible. Some rents were unverifiable.

His slip rates for each harbor were averages, but he doesn't provide what the average boat length is in each harbor.

Each harbor is different, but Newport has the longer boats, skewing his percentages higher. To correct this, a comparison of mooring lengths in each harbor has to be compared to slips of the same length in that same harbor.

Since permittees pay the rent based on the maximum length possible on their mooring, not their boat length, this maximum mooring length is the basis for comparison. And the slip rate for this same length is used for comparison —LIKE FOR LIKE.

Mooring
Mooring
Slip Rate $/If/Mo.

Harbor
Length
$/If/Mo.

Same If as Moorin
Ratio
San Diego
29 5.09
22 23%
54 2.91
37 8%
60 2.42
30 6.5%
Mission Bay
25 2.69

16.55 17%
Santa Barbara
50 .58

12.23 5%
Morro Bay
54 2.04

17.17 12%
Monterey
50 1.57

11.80 13%
Pillar Point
50 2.03

11.32 18%
Admustments - It is appropriate for an appraiser to adjust for the differences between the comparable and the subject. There are major differences that need to be taken into consideration, but weren't. a. Ownership and maintenance of the mooring tackle varies between some of the comparables and the subject. Of the comparables used by the appraiser, San Diego, BYC (most) and NHYC maintain the moorings for the permittees. San Diego Mooring Company maintenance cost was estimated at $120/Mo. according to CBRE appraisal. Two other harbors have both City maintained and leased out moorings and permitted moorings where the Permittee installs and maintains tackle, similar to Newport. There is a 300% difference in rents between the City -maintained tackle and the Permittee maintained mooring. This needs to be analyzed. b. Dinghy storage is not included in any of the comparables' rent (except for BYC and NHYC) However, all harbors except Newport Beach have dinghy storage available for a fee ($100/Mo.+/-). There are few dinghy storage spaces available in Newport, and these have lengthy waiting lists. A dollar or percentage adjustment is speculative, so a ratio at the bottom of the range might be appropriate.

Conclusion
No weight is given to the San Diego rates as the rents have not been increased in many years and Santa Barbara as the moorings are in the outer waters and do not have much demand. Based on this, the ratio range narrows to 12- 18% with a concluded rate at 14%. Additional adjusting for maintenance is needed if BYC and NHYC are used. 3 13-387

FURTHER DATA FORD I RECTCOMPARISON TO OTHER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SMALL BOAT TID ELAN DS STORAGE The following approach to value for shore moorings in Newport includes a Southern California Onshore Mooring Comparison utilizing onshore moorings in three other areas. This approach incorporates a location adjustment utilizing a comparison of slip rents between Newport and the other bays. Two slip rent surveys completed in Newport are analyzed and surveys in other bays have been updated. Not included are marinas requiring membership and marinas where significant data was not available.

The tidelands onshore boat storage in each harbor vary. None are like those in Newport. In fact, none are alike.

Mission Bay has Beach Bars, with each boat being assigned a spot on a secured bar located on the shoreline.

Alamitos Bay has what they call "Sand Stakes" with each boat assigned a wall ring on shore. These are available to the permittee for 11 to 12 months. The boats have to be moved for beach replenishment, typically for one week. 11 month occupancy is used in this analysis. Finally, Santa Barbara has two types of storage, one for larger catamarans and one fenced beach area for smaller boats. The catamaran beach is not included in this analysis as in recent years, it has experienced very high vacancy. Briefly, each of these mooring types has its own advantages, but are generally considered comparable. These others require more than one person or extra equipment to move the boats into water, but Newport mooring permittees have to pay for maintenance of the mooring and boat bottoms. The three onshore boat storage comps are summarized as follows:

Mission Bay Beach Bars $171/year with the typical bar size limit at 14 ft. $12.21/lf/yr Alamitos Bay Sand Stakes $305/11 months for boats up to 16 feet $19.06/lf/yr Santa Barbara West Beach $350/year for boats up to 16 feet $21.88/lf/yr Location Admustment- A location adjustment utilizing the average rent for 25-foot slips for each area as compared to similar rents in Newport is utilized in this analysis. The 25-foot slip is used because it is the most common small slip size in each bay. The Newport Beach rate for slips is the rate for 25 foot slip at the Balboa Yacht Basin Marina.

The surveys in the other bays are current. The rents represent the rent per linear foot divided by the number of marinas surveyed in each bay. The indicated adjustment factor for each bay is derived by dividing the average for Newport by the average for each bay.

Newport Beach average of BYB = $32.38/lf
Mission Bay average of 4 marinas = $15.92/If Adjustment Factor = 2.03 Alamitos Bay average of 2 marinas = $14.90/lf Adjustment Factor = 2.17 Santa Barbara using one marina operated by the City = $11.48/lf Adjustment Factor = 2.82 Indicated rental for Newport Shore Moorings after the Location Adjustment — The rent per linear foot for the three tidelands boat storage comps is multiplied by the Adjustment Factor as follows:

Mission Bay $12.21/lf/yr x 2.03 = $24.79/lf/yr.

Alamitos Bay $19.06/lf/yr x 2.17 = $41.36/lf/yr
Santa Barbara $21.88/lf/yr x 2.82 = $61.70/lf/yr
Conclusion: An average of all three indicate a rent at $42.62/lf/yr. In brief, the concluded rent is $45/lf/yr, or $3.75/if/mo., or 48% of the proposed rent for 25-foot moorings. 4 13-388

Biddle, Jennifer
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Newport Beach City Council,
Barbara
May 11, 2024 7:32 AM
Dept - City Council; [email protected]; [email protected] State of the Bay Luncheon Hosted by Newport Harbor Foundation FollowUp
Completed
It is my understanding that City Council wilt be attending the State of the Bay Luncheon hosted by Newport Harbor Foundation, Wednesday May 15, 2024. It is the resident of this community opinion that when City Council, joins this luncheon, it is against the Browns Act. The subjects that are being covered at this luncheon, and the peopLe who will be attending the luncheon will, have financial benefit from their attendance, including subjects that should be incLuded in public forum. I highly encourage the city council to resend the attendance of this luncheon.

Increase in Mooring fees for mooring hoLders in Newport wiLL aLso be covered at this Luncheon. This subject needs to be presented in a pubLic forum among the other topics that will be addressed. newportharborfoundation.org
Barbara
714-623-4141
13-389

Biddle, Jennifer
From: Blank, Paul
Sent: May 16,2024 10:15 AM
To: John Rogers
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: RE: Harbor Commission contacts -
Mr. Rogers:

You can send an email to all Harbor Commissioners at [email protected]. City staff may also receive a copy of the email. Please note, emails and correspondence with the Harbor Commission may be considered a public record.

If you would like their individual addresses, they are available at the bottom of this City Harbor Department webpage:
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/harbor/harbor-commission Best,
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
----- Original Message -----
From: John Rogers
Sent: May 16, 2024 10: 11 AM
To: Blank, Paul
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Harbor Commission contacts -
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Paul,
I hope you had a wonderful time at the opening day ceremony at BYC.

Would you so kind to send me the contact for for the Harbor Commission and its members - As you know I am strongly against the proposed inequitable fee increases for off shore mooring holders and want to get some explanation why they choose to single them out.
1 13-390

Thank you in Advance-
J R
John Rogers
949-683-8004
13-391

Biddle, Jennifer
From: Brian H Ouzounian
Sent: May 16, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fw: Coastal Commission Staff Have Expressed Concern Over Mooring Rates Dear council members:
i am copying you on this issue. maybe one or some of you will respond with some interest.

Best Regards,
Brian H. Ouzounian
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Brian Ouzounian
To: Newport Mooring Association
Cc: Joe Stapleton
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 at 09:44:34 AM PDT
Subject: Re: Coastal Commission Staff Have Expressed Concern Over Mooring Rates NMA Board:

I have been a mooring holder in Newport Harbor for 50 years and also blessed to have a slip. I am utterly dismayed and upset this all is, setting rates way above the benchmark rates created by the state land commission. I do not believe the rate should exceed the State Lands Commission in Newport Harbor.

The bulletin below is NOT good news to residential slip owners as well as mooring holders. 10 years ago there was an all out Harbor War over these rates, and now residential slip owners are potentially being dragged into another forced increase just because, they think, mooring holders are getting an outrageous jab. I recall the days of " STOP THE DOCK TAX", which resulted in clearing out the whole city council in the next election. I urge, don't lean on slip owners!
In the last several years, the city has pumped extra management costs by way of the creation of the Harbor department, which is new and draining resources with no memory of where they came from. Can you remember council member Duffy stating that the sheriff charges $300,000 per year to manage the Harbor and we, the city, can do it cheaper and better.

Wow, was he wrong and now the budget is $$2,500,000 per year and growing with a voracious appetite for more money.

The. Harbormaster makes a salary of about $216,000 per year alone and his deputy about 200,000 per year.

This mooring issue and the fighting forces have awakened a sleeping giant, and will surely cause great dissension among residential property dock owners!
I sat in a board meeting with you about 10 years ago and I gave you fair warning.

Congratulations Scott Carlin, you've really mucked this up.

Brian
13-392

Sent from my Pad
On May 10, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Newport Mooring Association wrote:

View this email in your browser
11 Dear Mooring Holders,
We're happy to share some positive news with you: The NMA has met with the California Coastal Commission Staff and provided our views on the Harbor Commission's mooring rate hikes. Coastal Commissioners were alarmed by the potential impact on low to average -income boaters who may find themselves priced out of the harbor and directed Staff to investigate further. The Commissioners also expressed concern regarding the disparity of rates charged in the harbor for other permit types.

To provide clarity, here are the current and proposed rates for tidelands use in Newport Harbor (based on a 40ft mooring):

Current residential dock permit rate: $0.56 per square foot per year (with as many boats allowed on the dock that will fit)
Current mooring permit rate: $1.34 per square foot per year (the City's equivalent to our current billing by linear foot) New mooring permit rate (pending) $4.80+ per square foot per year +Please note the new mooring rate will likely be closer to $9 per square foot in 5 years as the Harbor Commission has pegged future annual increases to skyrocketing slip rates rather than the standard CPI annual adjustment.

This translates to a significant increase, for instance, a 40-foot mooring currently paying $1,603 per year would soar to $5,770++ per year. 2 13-393

In addition to Coastal Commission concerns, the State Lands Commission has issued a memo to the City of Newport Beach, suggesting the city should now reevaluate residential dock rates in the harbor. An excerpt from this memo is included below. It appears the obvious price discrimination related to the huge mooring rate hike may disrupt all permit rates in Newport Harbor.

While we all would prefer to resolve our mooring issue locally, the Harbor Commission's efforts to impose the exorbitant price discrimination have gotten the attention of state authorities who are now questioning how the City sets all tideland permit rates in Newport Harbor.

Let's work together to address these concerns and ensure fair access to our beloved harbor for all boaters. The city has told Coastal Commission staff that they hope to bring up the mooring rates issue in June. Be prepared: if and when the mooring rates are brought up on the City Council agenda, we will need the presence of ALL mooring permittees at the meeting. Contact your City Council Representatives today to tell them to stop this disruption to Newport Harbor!
M stapieton(a-)_newportbeachca.gov
bavery(cb_newportbeachca.gov
eweigand(cD_newportbeachca.gov
rqrant(a)-newportbeachca.gov
n blom(a)_newportbeachca.gov
lkleiman(a)_newportbeachca.gov
woneill(a-)-newportbeachca.gov
3 13-394

Have you signed the petition addressed to the California Coastal Commission yet?
Click HERE for the petition
Thanks for your support!
Your NMA Directors
Looking out for the interests of all mooring permittees Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
F9
F9
F9
Copyright @ 2024 Newport Mooring Association, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you gave us your email address when you joined the NMA, or may have given it to us at an annual meeting.

Our mailing address is:

Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118
Newport Beach, California 92659-0118
13-395

Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 13-396

Biddle, Jennifer
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Categories:

John Rogers
May 16, 2024 10:11 AM
Blank, Paul
Dept - City Council
Harbor Commission contacts -
Red Category
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Paul,
I hope you had a wonderful time at the opening day ceremony at BYC.

Thank you in Advance-
JR
John Rogers
949-683-8004
13-397

Biddle, Jennifer
From: John Rogers
Sent: May 16,2024 10:15 AM
To: Chris Benzen
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Re: SOTH I The Stewards of the Harbor Mailing List Attachments: MooringDiscriminationRate.pdf; Resolution2015-10.pdf 1EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Links or attachments unLess you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Great Stuff
Let's send this to each council members email? Can you send me their address — I copied the Citycoucil, email that I have -
I am a mooring owner and a resident of Newport Beach and this is egregious dispLay of inequaLity and class discrimination that peopLe hate about government and its representatives.

John Rogers
On May 16, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Chris Benzen wrote:

Not sure if you all received my email last week from "The SOTH" Stewards of the Harbor. I'll be sure to add all of these emails to that email list this weekend. I've been so busy lately that I can only find time to work on this stuff on the weekends and rare times during work or at night.

I've built a website to house information and to educate new people that are going to join our group. That website is: http://www.thesoth.com Feel free to direct people to that website as it has the electronic payment link for don ation/contri bution s that go directly into the trust account.

Also, see attached. I just finished an edit of a flyer that one of the liveaboards, had sent me for review and editing. This is a great display that shows the blatant discrimination going on in the harbor.
13-398

If the Harbor Commission is so worried about leaving money on the table, look at this dock with two yachts, two duffys, three 9-15' skiffs, and one sailboat. The dock isn't even registered as a commercial dock (they aren't reporting that they are subleasing; i.e. paying their fair share to the Tideland Fund). This dock is paying $641.25 per year, while the shore mooring right next to it will soon pay $4,320 per year.

I am not against the residential dock fee structure, I just want fairness. Targeting us while allowing this to go on is absurd. The solution is for the City to amend resolution 2015-10 (which created the calculation for the residential docks), to include the words "moorings". Also attached is resolution 2015-10.

Please continue to donate/contribute to the legal fund and spread the word. The legal route is our only hope now.

Regards,
Chris
13-399

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADJUSTING THE

RENTAL CALCULATION AND APPROVING A REVISED

MODEL PERMIT TEMPLATE FOR RESIDENTIAL PIERS

LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to authorize third parties to construct/maintain residential piers upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article W'Section 6, NBMC Section 17.60.060(D) and City Council Policy F-7(D) require the City to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands-, WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser; WHEREAS, an appraisal report by Rasmuson Appraisal Services, and an appraisal report by Netzer & Associates, were prepared and delivered to the City and have been reviewed and considered by the City Council, which reports are part of the record for this matter;
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-88, approving a model residential pier permit for residential piers located upon tidelands and establishing fair market value rent;
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the City Council considered, at its regularly scheduled study session, the current status of the City's tidelands regulations and rents for moorings, commercial piers and residential piers and directed staff to bring back certain amendments contained in this resolution to improve the tidelands rent process; WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the record in connection with this resolution; and
WHEREAS, all previous resolutions, or portions thereof, and actions regarding the fair market value rent for residential piers and the model pier permit template for residential piers that are in conflict with the provisions in this resolution are hereby repealed.
'3'ity of New---u, t Lx",ec
P 13-400

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. The Recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.

Section 2: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in the attached Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations, which is incorporated by reference, provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rate (and adjustments) in the attachment constitute fair market value rent for residential piers located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisals of its City -selected appraisers and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines the rent for residential piers located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall be set in accordance with the attached Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations. The rent established in this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees with a residential pier located over tidelands.

Section 3: The City Council adopts the revised model residential pier tidelands permit attached to this resolution, and incorporated by this reference, for use by residential pier tidelands users. The City Council finds that the residential tidelands users subject to the attached model permit are not subject to the open bid process found in City Council Policy F-7 because redevelopment/reuse of the tidelands by a third party would require excessive time, resources and costs which would outweigh other financial benefits.

Section 4: The City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent and the approval of a revised model permit template for residential piers located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent and the approval of a revised model permit template for residential piers located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the residential pier rent and permit contemplate the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent for piers located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the adjustment of residential pier rent and the approval of a revised model permit template for residential piers located upon tidelands is not a project under 0 .C.Ity of Newpul L D "Ifo 13-401

CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 10" day of February, 2015.

Edward D. Selich,
Mayor_,,m,,._
ATTEST:

Leilani f. Brown,
City Clerk
Attachments: (1) Adjusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations (2) Revised Model Permit Template for Residential Piers City of Newport Beac- 13-402

Adiusted Residential Pier Tidelands Rent Calculations
Residential Pier Rent
(1) Residential Pier Permittees shall pay as Rent Fifty Cents ($0,50) per square foot of the Premises, as phased in and adjusted pursuant to this resolution.

Two (2) examples of the Rent calculation are provided below for illustrative purposes:

Proposed - 215 VIA LIDO SOLID
Total Permit Area = 992 sq. ft.
�,nt t Fee
.2017.RL a. .$496.
_0.60/. ft)
Proposed - 417 EDGEWATER PL
Total Permit Area = 637 sq� ft.
..2017 Rental Fee:=. $3118.95
$0.50/sq. ft:
(2) Permittees that desire to rent/lease their Residential Pier shall notify the City in writing. Permittees that rent/lease their Residential Pier, either in whole or in part, shall pay the Rent applicable to Small Commercial Marinas as established in Resolution No. 2012-98, or any successor resolution, for the Premises.
(3) To the extent a Residential Pier is shared by two (2) or more Permittees, the Rent shall be apportioned equally among the Permittees (i.e., if a City of Newpui t L) lt", iA 13-403

Residential Pier is shared by two (2) Permittees, half (1/2) of the Rent shall be billed to one (1) Permittee and the other half (1/2) of the Rent shall be billed to the other Permittee). The Permittees shall be jointly and severally liable for the Rent. Each Permittee shall receive a permit from the City indicating the percentage of the Premises apportioned to the Permittee,
Periodic Adjustments of Rent and Phase In
Rent for Residential Piers provided by this resolution, shall be phased -in and adjusted as follows in the table below. In the table, "A" represents the calculated rent based on the known square footage under permit in 2012, multiplied by Fifty Cents a square foot ($0.50/SF):

FLY Cents ($0.50) Rent Phase -in Table and Adjustment
E=1=ONE=
Emm alum
V�RVWNMWMVV
$100
([A-$1001/5)
([A-$1001/5)
([A-$100]/5)
([A-$1001/5)
Fully Phased -in
+$100
+ 2013 Rent
+ 2014 Rent
+ 2015 Rent
Rent (A)
Example #1:
$100
$194
$288
$382
$476
$570
1,139 SF
Example #2:
$100
$223
$345
$468
$590
$713
1,426 SF
Example #3:
$100
$428
$756
$1,084
$1,412
$1,740
3,480 SF
A = square footage x $0.50
Rent for Residential Piers of one hundred ninety square feet (190') or less shall pay the fully phased in Rent immediately and be subject to CPI adjustment beginning in 2018.

During the phase -in period there shall be no adjustment by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ("CPI"), Los Angeles-Riversid e-0 range County region or otherwise.

Beginning in 2018 and indefinitely beyond, the rental rate shall be adjusted by the change in the CPl or two percent (2%) whichever is less. The City may conduct a new appraisal of residential pier rental rates in Newport Harbor after March 1, 2018, and every fifth (5 th) year thereafter, as part of the appraisal required by Resolution No. 2012- 96, or any successor resolution. The City Council, at its discretion, may use the appraisal to adjust Rent for the following year (Le., the Rent determined by the appraisal following March 1, 2018 shall be effective March 1, 2019). If the City Council chooses not to adjust Rent across the Class of Permit, it shall use the appraisal's results to adjust the Rent of only those individual Permits that transfer ownership following each appraisal. Once adjusted, these transferred Permits shall be adjusted by the change in CPI or two percent (2%), whichever is less, until such time that a new appraisal applies to this Permit or Class of Permit.
.C.Ity of Newpul L Diveo,
13-404

Definitions
Unless otherwise provided, the terms provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") shall apply to this resolution. The singular of any term also includes the plural.
(1) Class of Permit means all Permits for Residential Piers in Newport Harbor. (2) Permit refers to a permit issued by the City authorizing a Residential Pier upon the Premises.
(3) Permittee means a person who has a permit from the City to construct/maintain a Residential Pier.
(4) Premises means those Tidelands which are subject to the applicable permit and are more particularly described and depicted in the applicable permit, excluding any Private Waterways and improvements owned by the Permittee or Tidelands subject to recorded easements for pier and slip purposes. The Premises shall include only the portion of the Tidelands located under a Residential Pier and shall exclude the interior U-Shape of a slip. (5) Private Waterways means privately owned submerged lands or submerged lands subject to recorded easements for pier and slip purposes. (6) Rent means the annual fair market rent charged on a square footage basis for the use of the Premises.
(7) Residential Pier means a pier used by the owner(s), occupant(s), guest(s) or lessee(s) of the abutting residentially zoned upland property. A Residential Pier shall include the entire pier system, including, but not limited to, the float, gangway, gangway landing, pier, and pier platform. The Residential Pier shall specifically exclude the interior U-Shape of a slip. (8) Tidelands mean certain tidelands and submerged land (whether filled or unfilled), located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, granted to the City of Newport Beach, as trustee, by the State of California, pursuant to the Tidelands Grant.
(9) Tidelands Grant means uncodified legislation related to the State of California's grant of certain rights in the Tidelands to the City of Newport Beach, including, without limitation, the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978, as amended [citations omitted]).

City of Newport buew, 13-405

ATTACHMENT B
Residential Tidelands Pier Permit
(1) Permittee; This Permit is issued on to
("Permittee") to construct/maintain a residential pier located upon City of Newport Beach ("City") tidelands, as more particularly described and depicted in Attachment 1 ("Premises"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. By acceptance of this Permit, the Permittee agrees to be bound by the terms contained in this Permit. (2) Term: This Permit shall be valid for a period of _ year(s) beginning on March 1, 20 and expiring on February _, 20_, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. A new permit may be automatically issued upon expiration, provided rent is paid and the pier is maintained. The City's longstanding policy is to re -issue residential permits to the upland property owner, who also owns the physical dock associated with the Premises. (3) Rent: Rent shall be calculated pursuant to Resolution No. 2015- or any successor/amended resolution. Resolution No. 2015- — and any success�o`rlamended resolution are automatically incorporated by reference into this Permit, without any further action by the parties, when adopted by the Newport Beach City Council. (A) Payment of Rent: All rent shall be annually prorated and billed through Permittee's Municipal Services Statement ("MSS"). All rent shall be due and payable pursuant to the terms of Permittee's MSS.
(6) Late Cha[ges: A ten percent (10%) late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by City by the due date.
(C) Third -Party Use: This Permit o allows / n does not allow (check one) the Permittee to rent/lease the Premises to a third -party, (4) Utilities and Taxes: The Permittee is solely responsible for obtaining all utilities and paying all taxes (including possessory interest tax, if applicable), fees and assessments for the Premises or improvements located thereon.
(5) Maintenance. The Permittee assumes full responsibility for operation and maintenance and repair of the Premises and associated improvements throughout the term of this Permit at its sole cost, and without expense to the City.
(6) Transfer/Assignmen : This Permit may be transferred or assigned by the Permittee as provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
(7) Property Right Protection: The residential pier maintained under this Permit is private property and shall be protected to the maximum extent under the law from unlawful seizure. (8) Settlement Agreemen . This Permit is in full compliance with the February 21, 2014 Settlement Agreement entered into between the City and the Newport Beach Dock Owners Association.

C 0
ity of Newport 13-406

MEDIUM I IVA NO I IUI.

Attachment 1
Description & Depiction of Premises
Premise's Address (or description of general location):

Premise's Square Footage:

Premise's Depiction:

City of Newport Bea(..�- 13-407

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2015-10 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the I oth day of February, 2015, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Petros, Council Member Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tern Dixon
NAYS: Council Member Curry
RECUSED: Council Member Duffield, Mayor Selich
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11 th day of February, 2015.
4y4hV'-. - , &t'�
5ty Clerk 'V'
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)
City of Newport buo,, 13-408

Tidelands Rate Discrimination
Dock v Mooring
=$360/month
=$53/month ,
=$O/month
Currently, dock permits pay significantly
less for boat storage. They also aren't
charged for the "'buffer space," around th
docks, so all of these boats are stored on
tidelands for free; effectively a gift of
public tidelands, which is explicilty agaim
California law.

The 18 foot shore mooring (teal circle) wi
pay $360 per month under the new
Harbor Commission Recommendation.

Furthermore., the Dock permit allows the
permitee to rent to third parties, they also
aren't required to register their vessel
information with the Harbormaster., and
they are not required to name the City, its
employees, and contractors on their
insurance, among other benefits.

Our only hope to stop this Rate Hike is for
a lawsuit to halt the City and for a Judge
to look into all of this. There is a group
that has hired a lawfirm and has notified
the City of it's intent to file a lawsuit.

Residential Pier Permits (1)
Residential Pier Permit >
Address: 351 BAY FRONT E
Permit Area Total Square Footage: 1. 125
Dier is not shared by more than one resident. Fee 15 based on total square footage.

Permit Fee
CurrentYear: S641.25
You can help donate to this cause via
www.thesoth.com
Pier Permit Exhibit
13-409

Biddle, Jennifer
From: Yonkers, Ken J - NEWPORT BE CA
Sent: June 03, 2024 12:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed mooring rate increase
Dear City Council:

While the Harbor Commission is a well -intended hard working City volunteers, I feel their proposed rate increase is a misguided effort to raise money. We all know the moorings offer an affordable ability for less affluent boaters to have access to the harbor. If they had the money, they would certainly opt to pay the dock fees for the safety, convenience, and amenities (water and electricity mainly, but showers, restrooms, etc.).

As it relates to shore moorings, have the appraisals factored in:

We have no hose, no electricity, sand crabs drawing blood on our ankles, ladies not wanting to go boating as their shoes get wet or sand on them or they cannot climb up on the boat, as opposed to the ease of stepping off a dock into a boat.

Have they factored in the stress of the boat's hull from being on the sand? Have they considered the shortened engine life of the engine by having no hose or water to flush the salt water from the engine? What about the occasional sinking and permanent engine damage?
The Harbor Master Department verifies the registration of the boat matches the mooring occupant for each mooring in the harbor. Why is this not done for the docks in the harbor (I have friends who own docks, but this is a reality)? Millions of dollars are collected in dock fees from dock owners who lease space on their docks, tax-free.

The below picture is a popular brand Grady White which has a flat bottom. The king tides happen fast and the bottom sticks to the sand bringing water over the transom (back of the boat). The Harbor patrol had to pump it out and tow it. This happened to my Grady White twice, over $3,400 damage each time. 13-410

13-411

-,p r M.. br c
-Ir
.64, Z—-
4 ftia,
93 13-412

Please leave the affordable opportunity the moorings provide for boaters as is.

Thank you for your sincere consideration.

Ken Yonkers
215 Crystal Avenue
Balboa Island, CA 92662
Ken Yonkers, President
Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association
P.O. Box 74
Balboa Island, CA 92662
949-683-7805
The Little Balboa Island Property Owners' Association is dedicated to maintaining a safe, enjoyable, and harmonious neighborhood while increasing the value of its members' properties.

Please visit our website: littlebalboaisland.org
This message, and any attachment(s), is forthe intended recipient(s) onLy, may contain information that is priviLeged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions avaiLabLe at http://www.bankofamerica.com/eLectronic-disclaimer . If you are not the intended recipient, pLease delete this message. For more information about how Bank of America protects your privacy, including specific rights that may appLy, pLease visit the foLLowing pages: https://business.bofa.com/en- us/content/gLobaL-privacy-notices.htmL (which incLudes gLobaL privacy notices) and https://www . ban kofamerica.com/secu rity-ce nter/privacy-overview/ (which incLudes US State specific privacy notices such as the http://www.bankofamerica.com/ccpa-notice) . 13-413

Biddle, Jennifer
From: bgriffith sclfinance.com
Sent: June 03, 2024 2:45 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Anne Stenton
Cc: Dept - City Council; Grant, Robyn
Subject: Request for meeting regarding Proposed Mooring Rates Hello Mayor O'Neil,
It was nice to sit and chat on Friday at Starbucks. I learned so much more about our city.

Could you please contact NMA to set up a meeting to discuss the mooring rates? The President, Anne Stenton, will be our point of contact. Mayor O'Neil, I believe a face-to-face conversation is often the simplest and most effective way to communicate.

Anne Stenton
Newport Mooring Association
(949) 872-9415
anstenton(cD-qmail.com
Key Topics to Include:

1. WhoistheNMA?

1. Overview of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA) and its effective coLLaboration with mooring holders & Newport Beach Residents

2. Discrimination in Tidelands Rates in Newport Harbor

1. ExpLoring the reasons behind the widespread perception of unfair treatment regarding TideLands rates.

3. Unfair Terms for Mooring Holders

1. A discussion of the terms considered unfair by mooring holders.

4. Resolution Strategies

1. Potential approaches to address the issues with the City and engage concerned parties regarding the fee increases.

2. CBRE appraisal.

Thank you for your leadership, and your dedication to our city.

With your success in mind,
Barbara Griffith
A resident of Corona Del Mar
714-623-4141
1 13-414

Biddle, Jennifer
From: ATX
Sent: June 10, 2024 10:41 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase.

PLease vote against the increase in mooring fees as the beauty of newport shouLd be appreciated not onLy by out of town visitors but us LocaLs who have faLLen in Love with the life we have but may have noticed we are being pushed out by the cost of Living.

Thankyou
WarmLy,
AroLyn Burns LPCC, LMFT
The A Treatment Center
www.TheATreatment.com
Located Corona deL Mar; Newport Beach
CaLL for a free 15 minute phone consuLtation now!
(833) 426-0303
Check out our YELP reviews:
https://s.yeLp.com/4Kaut8UB9u
And
https://s.yeLp.com/vgPfYF5VhA
Honored to be the recipient of the Prestigious Cornelia Funke Award for ExceptionaL Social[Work in LA County 2014.
1 13-415

Biddle, Jennifer
From: Jeanne Conwell
Sent: June 11, 2024 10:58 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please vote no on the mooring increase. It seems unfair and not well thought out.

Thank you.

Jeanne Conwell
Sent from my iPhone
13-416

Attachment K
Ordinance No. 2024-15: Redlines
13-417

Exhibit "A"
The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.60 (Harbor Permits and Licenses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 17.60

HARBOR PERMITS AND LEASES
Sections:

17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.

17.60.015 Application for Harbormaster Permits.

17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits and Licenses or the Lease of Public Trust Lands.

17.60.030 Pier Permits for Noncommercial Piers.

17.60.040 Mooring Permits.

17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.

17.60.050 Houseboats.

17.60.060 Public Trust Lands.

11. Section 17.60.010(A) (Public Trust Lands —General) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.

A. Applicability. Public trust lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the public trust at any time. The City manages these lands through a series of permits, licenses, franchises and leases.

This chapter applies to permits or leases for public trust lands used for commercial purposes by a person, other than the City, pier permits for noncommercial piers, and mooring permits or licenses.

Ill. The title and content of Section 17.60.020 (Application for Pier/Mooring Permits or the Lease of Public Trust Lands) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits,_Licenses or the Lease of Public Trust Lands.
13-418

A. Required Forms. Except for permits to be filed with the Harbormaster, applications for permits, licenses, or leases which pertain to Newport Harbor under the provisions of this chapter shall be filed in the Public Works Department, in writing, on forms prescribed by the Public Works Director.

B. Required Materials. Applications shall be accompanied by all plans, maps, and other materials required by the prescribed forms, unless specifically waived by the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director may request additional materials deemed necessary to support the application.

C. Required Signatures. Applications for permits, licenses, or leases issued by the Public Works Director may be made by the owner, lessee, or agent of the owner of the property affected. The application shall be signed by the owner of record or may be signed by the lessee or by an authorized agent if written authorization from the owner of record is filed concurrently with the application.

D. Fees. Applications and renewals shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council.

E. Tidelands Users. Users of public tidelands, including commercial and noncommercial users, shall be subject to rental or lease charges reflective of the fair market value related to such use as established by the City Council with the assistance of an appraisal. (Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 §§ 54, 55, 2018; Ord. 2013-1 § 8, 2013; Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008)
IV. Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.60.040 Mooring Permits.

A. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct, maintain, use or tie to a mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands (i.e., an offshore mooring) or in the nearshore perimeter of Newport Harbor perpendicular to the shoreline (i.e., an onshore mooring) without first having obtained a mooring permit from the Harbormaster or having otherwise complied with this section. A mooring permit or license pursuant to Section 17.60.045 is in the nature of license for the temporary use of a specific location within Newport Harbor. As of August 22, 2024, the City will no longer issue new mooring permits, other than sub -permits, but shall instead process and approve mooring license applications pursuant to Section 17.60.045.

B. Issuance of Perm it—Cond itions. The Harbormaster, in furtherance of the tideland grants to the City, may issue a mooring permit or mooring sub -permit to allow the mooring permittee or mooring sub-permittee to temporarily use a portion of the waters of Newport Harbor for the mooring of a vessel if the Harbormaster makes the findings set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1). A mooring permittee may hold up to two mooring permits at any time. A mooring permittee that held or continues to hold more than two 13-419

mooring permits prior to May 11, 2017, may continue to hold the mooring permits until the permits are sold, revoked, or otherwise transferred under this chapter.

Exceptions.
a. The Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively, "yacht clubs") currently hold permits for single point moorings placed within certain mooring area boundaries established by the City, as noted in subsection (13)(3)(g) of this section.

In addition, the Lido Isle Community Association ("LICA") has permits for onshore moorings on Lido Isle. These organizations shall hold their respective permits under the yacht club, or respective organization name, for the moorings identified by the City as under their respective control at the time of enactment of the ordinance codified in this section. The yacht clubs and LICA shall be solely responsible for managing moorings under their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under their control to yacht club members and members of LICA, respectively. The yacht clubs and LICA shall keep accurate records of the name and address of the club members and community association members to which each mooring has been assigned and the corresponding length of each vessel. The yacht clubs and LICA may not sell or otherwise transfer the moorings under their control to a third party that is not a member of the yacht club or LICA. Mooring records and 24/7 emergency contact information shall be provided annually to the Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1 st. b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the assigned live -aboard vessel.
c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor.

An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable standards and those set forth in Section 17,05.140(D)(1).

2. Permit Requirements. Prior to August 22, 2024, the City issued aA mooring permit may be issued to a maximum of two (2) persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit.

The mooring permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length, and assigned vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully comply with the following conditions:
13-420

a. Identify on the permit the full legal name(s), current address(es), current telephone number(s) and current email address(es), if one exists, of the mooring permittee(s); b. Agree to be responsible for permit rent, fees, maintenance and repair of mooring equipment;
c. The permit for joint ownership moorings shall provide that all parties shall have equal rights under the permit and shall be held jointly responsible for compliance with all rules, regulations, and conditions set forth in the mooring permit; d. Grant permission to the City to temporarily assign the mooring to another vessel when it is unoccupied through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit; e. Agree to defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the mooring permit except where the claim or loss arises from the sub-permittee's damage of the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under subsections (G) and/or (H) of this section; f. Provide proof of insurance for the assigned vessel naming the City as an additional insured to the satisfaction of the Risk Manager;
g. Provide registration or other proof of controlling possessory right in the assigned vessel, all to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster;
h. Agree to pay fair market value rent, as established by resolution of the City Council, on a rent schedule established by the Harbormaster, which shall be similar to the schedule used to collect rent from other tidelands users in Newport Harbor; i. Agree that the mooring permit does not provide any ownership interest in the underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and owned by the people of the State of California;
j. Agree to move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster because the vessel has drifted from its assigned mooring location or to address safety or navigational concerns, and also to authorize the City or its designee to move the vessel upon the mooring permittee's failure to do so, at the permittee's expense; k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or h-i=s-designee, to board the permittee's vessel at any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in accordance with applicable laws; and

1. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the permittee is subject to relocation 13-421

within the same mooring field for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension requests. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. The costs of relocation, including the moving of mooring equipment, shall be borne by the mooring permittee who requested the mooring length extension.

Example: Permittee A has a mooring length of thirty-five (35) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee B has a mooring length of thirty (30) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a thirty-five (35) foot row. Permittee C has a mooring length of thirty-six (36) feet, a vessel LOA of thirty (30) feet, and is in a forty (40) foot row. Only Permittee B is subject to relocation.

3. Perm ittee/Tra n sfe ree Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or transferred once no later than August 21, 2028, to, only the following:
a. A natural person(s) including, but not limited to, an immediate family member, which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree of consanguinity;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will or administering a probated estate that holds a mooring permit, but only for one (1) year following the death of the permitteg the peried of time pFier te distribution of the estate, c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. A marine contractor, or marine support service provider, holding a mooring permit used to provide current or ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services (such as maintenance or dredging);
e. Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth education in boating and marine activities; Kerckhoff Marine Laboratories for the purpose of marine and oceanographic research; and American Legion Post 291 for the purpose of serving veterans and their families and supplying them with affordable access to boating and harbor activities; or similar marine educational entities; or f. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 2011. 13-422

C. Plans and Specifications Required. No mooring permit shall be issued for placing, erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or buoy is constructed:
1 . In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by the Harbormaster and at a location approved by the Harbormaster; or

2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring or buoy which have been submitted by the applicant, showing the construction of such proposed mooring or buoy together with the location thereof, and which meet the requirements established in this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbormaster.

D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05-120.

E. Transfer of Permit. Mooring permits are nontransferable, with the exception of mooring permits that were issued prior to August 22, 2024,the 8ff8Gt*VG date 9 OrdiRaRGe Ne. 2023-8 (july 13, 2023), which existing mooring permittees as of August 22, 2024, mav shall Gent'Rue to be transfer once, provided the transfer is completed no later than August 21, 2028able unless surrendered or reveked. A meering., permit th traRSferable may only be tFaRsfeFred E)Re tIM8 OR aRY tW8!Ve (12) RCK .41. pe, ied, URI86 transferred to a member ef the permittee's immediate farnil .

F. Procedures for Transfers. Permits shall not be transferred without the prior written approval of the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster may approve the transfer of a mooring permit sub'ect to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) under the procedures set out below:

1. The mooring permittee(s) (or, if the permittee is deceased or incapacitated, the transferee) shall submit to the Harbormaster:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by the Harbormaster); and
b. Documentation that the proposed new mooring permittee (transferee) qualifies as a mooring permittee under subsection (13)(3) of this section.

2. If transferee intends to purchase an assigned vessel but does not have title on the assigned vessel owned by the mooring permittee and transferor at the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to the Harbormaster a copy of a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current registration (or, in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's ownership of the assigned vessel or, in the case of an onshore mooring, a photograph of the assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel 13-423

registration laws. The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance with Section 17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbormaster within the sixty (60) day period, then the vessel or the mooring may be impounded, and the mooring may be deemed vacant and assigned pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section.

3. If transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the assigned vessel and does not have title to the vessel that will be moored at the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of an approved transfer, the transferee shall notify the Harbormaster that the assigned vessel has been removed from the mooring and before a new vessel may be placed on the mooring shall submit to the Harbormaster a copy of a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current registration (or, in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's ownership of the new assigned vessel, or in the case of an onshore mooring, a photograph of the new assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel registration laws.

The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance with Section

17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or
b. If the documentation is not received within sixty (60) days of a transfer, the mooring may be deemed vacant by the Harbormaster and the mooring may be assigned pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section. The mooring may remain vacant until such time the permittee notifies the Harbormaster of their intent to assign their vessel to the mooring.

4. The transfer request shall be denied unless mooring permit rent, including late payment fees, is paid current; required mooring inspections are current; registration or documentation and insurance are provided; required maintenance and repairs are complete and there are no derelict or unauthorized vessel(s) on the mooring; and the vessel is of appropriate length with the appropriate weights and chains.

5. The mooring permittee and transferee shall provide a written agreement to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach in any dispute with a third party over transferee's right to be the mooring permittee or in any dispute with a third party over the mooring permittee's right to transfer the permit.

6. The transferee shall provide written confirmation agreeing that no later four (4) years from the transfer date, the mooring permit will convert to a mooring license and comply with the requirements set forth in Section 17.60.045 and pay the rental rates established by resolution of the City Council for mooring licenses.

7. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with all provisions of this subsection, the Harbormaster must find all of the following conditions to approve the transfer of a mooring permit:
13-424

a. The mooring permittee no longer owns the assigned vessel or has retained ownership of the assigned vessel and has permanently vacated the mooring; b. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions for issuance of a permit in subsection (B) of this section;
c. The transferor or transferee has reported to the Harbormaster the price paid for the mooring permit, and has paid to the City the required transfer fee; and d. The transferor represents that the person did not discriminate against any transferee or prospective transferee because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, age or any other impermissible basis under law. 8-7. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.

98. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit, subject to the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license. 10-9. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of the mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third party's website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit transfers.

11. Except as provided in subsections (F)(8) and (F)(9), four (4) years from the transfer date but no later than September 1, 2032, the Harbormaster will convert all mooring Dermits transferred between Auaust 22. 2024. and Auaust 21. 2028. to a moorina license submect to the provisions of Section 17.60.045.

G. City's Authority to Assign Moorings through Use of Sub -Permits. With the exception of the Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and the Lido Isle Community Association's designated moorings, mooring permittee may not rent, assign, or transfer the use of the mooring to any other person. With the exception of moorings issued to mooring permittees described in subsection (B)(3)(g) of this section, the Harbormaster shall have the authority to assign vacant moorings to sub-permittees pursuant to the following provisions:

1. Deemed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign deemed vacant moorings through the issuance of sub -permits at his or her own discretion. Sub -permits may be renewed upon availability. The mooring permittee may reclaim its mooring upon three days' prior written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to return the assigned vessel to the mooring._A "deemed vacant mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon which:
13-425

a. An assigned vessel has not been attached for thirty (30) consecutive days or more; or
b. A vessel, other than an assigned vessel or approved sub-permittee vessel approved in accordance with subsection (H) of this section, has been attached for thirty (30) days or more; or
c. Required documentation for an assigned vessel has not been provided for a transfer request pursuant to subsection (F) of this section.

2. Noticed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign noticed vacant moorings through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit for any period of time, up to the reoccupation date on the mooring permittee's written notice, or the twenty-four (24) hour written notice per subsection (G)(2)(b) of this section. If the mooring continues to be vacant for thirty (30) days past the reoccupation date indicated on mooring permittee's notice, and there is no further written notice from mooring permittee, the mooring shall become a deemed vacant mooring.
a. Mooring permittee may provide written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to vacate its mooring for fifteen (15) days or more. These moorings shall be "noticed vacant moorings." Written notice shall include the date the mooring permittee intends to vacate his/her mooring, and the date he/she intends to reoccupy the mooring with the assigned vessel.
b. If a mooring permittee provides written notice, the mooring permittee may reclaim the assigned mooring on the reoccupation date indicated in his/her written notice or, if the mooring permittee returns prior to or after the reoccupation date, upon twenty-four (24) hours'written notice to the Harbormaster.

H. Procedures for Mooring Sub -Permit Issuance. Issuance of a mooring sub -permit shall be subject to the following conditions:
1 . Provision of a written representation of the mooring sub-permittee's vessel length which shall be satisfactory to the Harbormaster;

2. The mooring sub-permittee agrees to be responsible for any damage to mooring equipment; to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach and the mooring permittee against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to, the mooring rental; to provide proof of insurance as may be determined by the City's Risk Manager; to provide registration or other proof of ownership; to provide an equipment damage deposit, all to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster; and authorize the City to move the vessel on the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster;

3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid by the mooring sub-permittee. If the mooring is damaged by a vessel assigned by the City, or the City's 13-426

agent, the City shall arrange for the repair of the mooring with a qualified vendor and provide notice to the permittee of the occurrence and the arranged repair date. Should the sub-permittee fail to pay for the damage for any reason, the City will pay for the required repairs to the mooring, and then seek reimbursement from the sub-permittee.

Also, the City shall make available a mooring without charge for the returning vessel of the mooring permittee until such time as their permitted mooring is repaired;

4. The mooring sub-permittee shall provide approved mooring lines which shall be removed at the end of the rental period;

5. A mooring sub -permit may be up to fifteen (15) days and may terminate at any time for any reason, and may be renewed based on availability. Upon return of the assigned vessel to the mooring, the Harbormaster will attempt to reassign the sub-permittee to another mooring. Mooring sub-permittees have no right of renewal or substitute moorings upon return of the assigned vessel, or upon termination of a mooring sub - permit for any reason. Mooring sub-permittees accept an indefinite term at their own risk. The decision by the Harbormaster to terminate a sub -permit shall be final and nonappealable;

6. The mooring sub -permit rent will be based on a rate established by resolution of the City Council; and

7. Mooring sub -permits are offered to the public on a first -come, first -served basis.

City owned and operated moorings may be reserved in advance.

1. Mooring Permit Transfer Nonrefundable Fee. The City shall charge the mooring permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under and subffiect to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) of this section in an amount equal to seventy-five (75) percent of the annual mooring rent as established by City Council resolution. This transfer fee represents a one-time nonrefundable transfer fee for the use of a mooring. A mooring permit transfer fee shall not be required if:

1. The transfer is from the mooring permittee to the same mooring permittee as trustor of an inter vivos trust, living trust or other similar estate planning tool; or

2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)Qj-7) and (98) of this section'

3. The transfeF is to immediate family.

J. Surrendered Mooring Equipment. If the mooring permittee sells, transfers, or otherwise no longer owns the assigned vessel and does not intend to apply for, or does not receive, approval to transfer the permit to another, the permittee may provide written notice to the Harbormaster of his or her intent to surrender the mooring permit; otherwise the provisions of subsection (G) of this section regarding a vacant mooring shall apply.
13-427

Once a mooring permit is surrendered, the mooring permittee shall remove the assigned vessel and/or the mooring equipment thirty (30) days after written notice of surrender of the permit, or, upon failure to remove the mooring equipment, title shall vest in the City and the City shall compensate the mooring permittee the fair value for the mooring equipment, less rent or fees owed, as provided in subsection (L) of this section.

K. Revocation of Permit.
1 . The grounds and procedure for revocation of a mooring permit are set forth in Section 17.70.020.

2. Upon revocation of the mooring permit, it shall be the duty of the mooring permittee to immediately remove the mooring equipment and any moored vessel. If not removed within thirty (30) days of revocation of the permit, the mooring equipment shall vest in the City and may be auctioned by the City to another person or may be removed by the Harbormaster and the cost of mooring equipment removal shall be paid by the mooring permittee. Any moored vessel or equipment not removed within thirty (30) days may be impounded by the City and disposed of in the manner provided by law. City -incurred costs of removal of mooring equipment or any vessel moored thereto may be charged against the permittee and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or mooring equipment.

3. During any revocation proceeding, if the mooring is unoccupied, it may be temporarily assigned as a mooring for guest vessels by the Harbormaster.

L. Moorings Reverting Back to City. -Moorings authorized bV a mooring permit shall revert back to the City one (1) year after the death of all natural persons named as ,'mooring permitee(s)" as of August 21, 2024. Shouldin the event a mooring reverts back to the City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, death, failure to provide documents pursuant to subsection (F) of this section, or for any other reason other than as set forth in subsection (K) of this section, the following shall apply:

1. The mooring permittee shall be entitled to recover all of the mooring permittee's mooring equipment within thirty (30) days of reversion;

2. If the mooring permittee does not recover his or her mooring equipment, the mooring permittee shall be entitled to payment from the City of the fair value of the mooring equipment as depreciated by use in an amount to be determined by the Harbormaster and as set in the City's master fee resolution, after any and all past due rent and fees, if applicable, have been satisfied; and

3. The mooring equipment may be publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City purposes.
13-428

M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.

1. General. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed the established length of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring row lengths.

2. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written request for extension of mooring length with the Harbor Department on a form prescribed by the Harbormaster, together with the filing fee required by the City's fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
b. Application Requirements. An application for extension of mooring length shall include the following information in addition to such other information as may be required by the Harbormaster:
i. The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which the extension of mooring length is sought, certifying that the applicant and the assigned vessel have complied with (or in the event the vessel identification is unknown, applicant will certify that such unidentified vessel prior to occupying the mooring space will comply with) all of the applicable United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification requirements, and certifying that the applicant has read and is otherwise familiar with all of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City, including, but not limited to, the provisions of this title;
ii. Such plans and specifications as may be required by the Harbormaster for such mooring to accommodate the proposed longer vessel; and
iii. Detailed information regarding the vessel including make, model, year, LOA, beam, dimension, vessel ID, and if the vessel identification is not known at the time of making an application, the LOA and adjusted LOA (including bowsprits, swim steps, or stern - mounted dinghies) of the proposed vessel for which the applicant seeks approval. The LOA as published by the manufacturer of a particular vessel shall be used to determine the required mooring size of a particular vessel, and the size of the specification for the chains, weights, and tackle necessary to secure a vessel on a particular mooring for a permittee. Adjusted LOA shall be used to determine the maximum vessel length that can fit in any particular slip, side -tie, or mooring row.

3. Action on Extension Request. For extension requests that require relocation to a larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of 13-429

relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more. The Harbormaster may approve the extension request only after making the findings set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1) and making the following findings:
a. There have been no changes in the conditions or circumstances of the existing offshore mooring permit so that there would have been grounds for denial of the original offshore mooring permit or grounds for revocation thereof at the time an application for extension of mooring length is filed;
b. The proposed extension of mooring length will not:
i. Impede or obstruct the fairways or channels or prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels between the rows;
ii. Impede, obstruct or prevent other mooring permittees from safely navigating in and out of adjacent moorings or moorings in other rows connected by the same fairway to the row of the permittee's vessel;
iii. Result in vessel(s) encroaching into the fairway or extending beyond the outer boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the established length of the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored;
c. The applicant and the assigned vessel have complied with all of the appropriate United States Coast Guard license, inspection, and certification requirements for the assigned vessel and all of the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the City, including, but not limited to, the provisions of this title.

Example of relocation to an available mooring. Permittee A wishes to upgrade their vessel "Atlantis" (forty (40) foot LOA), which is in a forty (40) foot row, with "Atlantis 11" (forty-two (42) foot LOA). A will need to relocate to a mooring in a longer row since the mooring length cannot be extended at its current location. Permittee B's vessel "Barnacle" (forty-one (41) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee C's vessel "Calypso" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in forty-five (45) foot row. Permittee D's vessel "Doldrums" (forty (40) foot LOA) is in a forty-five (45) foot row. B has a permitted mooring length of forty-one (41) feet; C's permitted mooring length is forty (40) feet; and D's permitted mooring length is forty-one (41). All four moorings are in the same mooring field. C's mooring is the only available mooring to which A can relocate.

4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster approves a request for extension of mooring length, such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
13-430

a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with their vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval;
b. Transferable mooring permits shall not be sold or transferred for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of occupancy of the approved mooring. The sale or transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and (F) of this section; and
c. The requestor shall cover all costs associated with modifying the length of their mooring, or in the case of a relocation moving their vessel to the available mooring and moving the displaced vessel from the available mooring. The costs shall include, but not be limited to, the moving of mooring anchors and tackle and resizing of mooring tackle to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size).

5. Noncompliance with subsection (M)(4)(a) or (b) of this section shall result in rescission of the approval to extend mooring length. Within thirty (30) days of the rescission, the permittee who requested the extension shall at its sole expense return the mooring to its prior maximum length or in the case of a relocation return their vessel and the displaced vessel to their prior assigned mooring locations or other mooring locations as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster. Violation of subsection (M)(4)(b) of this section shall be grounds for revocation of the mooring permit. (Ord. 2023-22 § 767, 2023; Ord. 2023-8 §§ 6-11, 2023; Ord. 2022-9 §§ 7, 8, 2022; Ord. 2022-4 § 2, 2022; Ord. 2020-5 § 1 (Exh. 1) (part), 2020: Ord. 2018-17 § 58, 2018: Ord. 2017-7 § 3, 2017: Ord. 2013-11 § 175, 2013; Ord. 2010-26 § 5, 2010: Ord. 2008-2 § 1 (part), 2008) V. Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.

A. General. As of Auaust 22, 2024. all new moorinas aDDroved bv the Citv will be issued as a mooring license pursuant to this section.

1. If a short-term mooring license is issued pursuant to this section, a person shall have the right to use or tie to an offshore mooring or onshore mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor. A mooring license shall be nontransferable and shall not provide any ownership interest in the underlying tidelands, which are held in trust by the City and owned by the people of the State.

2. The provisions and regulations in this title pertaining to "permittees" and "permits" generally shall also be applicable to licensees and mooring licenses except when this section expressly provides otherwise, or such application would conflict with this section.
13-431

B. Term. Mooring licenses shall be valid for one month and may be renewed, provided the licensee has paid in full the license fee, any late fees and is not in violation of any provision of the license or this title.

C. License Fee —Late Fee. A licensee shall pay a license fee equivalent to the monthly fair market value rent of the mooring, as established by resolution of the City Council.

Failure to pay the license fee by the due date shall be grounds for termination of the license by the Harbormaster. If the Harbormaster, in the Harbormaster's sole discretion, elects to not terminate a license for failure to pay by the due date, licensee shall pay a late fee in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. Failure of a licensee to pay the license fee and late fee within ten (10) days of the date due shall result in immediate termination of the license and the termination shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission.

D. Eligibility Criteria.

1. Mooring licenses may be held only by natural persons. No more than two (2) persons may be listed on a mooring license.

2. A person may hold up to two (2)_mooring licenses, but they cannot be for the same type of mooring (e.g., both onshore or both offshore).

3. Onshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for onshore mooring licenses and offshore mooring permittees shall be ineligible for offshore mooring licenses except this provision shall not apply to a mooring permit that converted to a mooring license pursuant to Section 17.60.040(F)(1 1). Mooring permittees holding more than one (1) mooring permit shall not be eligible for any mooring license.

4. The person or persons listed on the mooring license must have at least a fifty (50) percent ownership interest in the vessel assigned to the mooring. The minimum ownership interest requirement may be satisfied by the combined interests of the two persons. For vessels that are not held in an individual capacity, such as in trust or by a limited liability company, evidence of the required minimum ownership interest shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Harbormaster.

E. Application for Mooring License. Application for a mooring license shall be filed with the Harbormaster, on forms approved by the Harbormaster, and shall include the following in addition to such other information the Harbormaster may require:

1. Applicant(s)' full legal name, current address, current telephone number and current email address;

2. Vessel registration or other proof of ownership required by the Harbormaster; and

3. Insurance, which types and amounts shall be determined by the Risk Manager. 13-432

F. Issuance of Mooring License. The Harbormaster may issue mooring licenses subject to the conditions set forth in this subsection.

1. Each person listed on a mooring license shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities pursuant to the mooring license and compliance with all applicable rules, regulations, and conditions.

2. A licensee may not allow vessels other than the assigned vessel and tender to use the mooring.

3. A licensee shall ensure mooring spreader lines remain visible on the surface at all times by the use of floats or other devices or methods and shall keep the lines clean of algae and other marine growth. Except for spreader lines, the City shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of mooring system components, including, but not limited to, chains, shackles, anchors, weights, lines, and buoys.

4. Live-aboards shall be prohibited except that this provision shall not appIV to mooring permittees that also held a live -aboard permit as of September 1, 2028, whose mooring permit converted to a mooring license.

5. The City may temporarily assign a mooring that is vacant or unoccupied to another vessel through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit in accordance with Section

17.60.040(H).

6. A licensee shall move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster. Upon the licensee's failure to do so, the City or a contractor retained by the City may move the assigned vessel at the licensee's expense.

7. A licensee shall be subject to relocation or reassignment to another mooring pursuant to Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(1).

8. The Harbormaster may board the assigned vessel at any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard.

9. A licensee shall defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the mooring license except where the claim or loss arises from a sub-permittee's damage of the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under Section 17.60.040(H).

10. A licensee shall notify the City within five (5) days of any change in the information that was provided in their mooring license application including, but not limited to, a change in ownership interest in the assigned vessel.
13-433

G. Extended Vessel Absence. Vacancy or absence from the mooring by the assigned vessel for at least twenty-five (25) consecutive days shall be deemed abandonment of the mooring and shall result in automatic termination of the mooring license.

Termination of license based on abandonment shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission. The following situations shall not constitute a mooring being deemed abandoned:

1. The absence or vacancy from the mooring, which shall not exceed six months, with the prior written approval of the Harbormaster.

2. The licensee is in the process of changing the assigned vessel, provided that (a) written notice of the intent to remove and replace the assigned vessel is given to the Harbormaster prior to removal of the vessel, (b) all required information and documentation for the new vessel, including proof of ownership or registration, is submitted to the Harbormaster within ninety (90) days of the date of the written notice, and (c) the vessel is made available for inspection by the Harbormaster for compliance with Section 17.25.020(H).

H. Mooring of a Tender and Request to Extend Mooring Length.

1. A single tender, which serves as access to and from shore to the assigned vessel, may be secured to the assigned vessel or to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The tender must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct other vessels.

2. A licensee may request a mooring length extension in accordance with Section

17.60.040(M).

1. Termination.

1. The Harbormaster may terminate a mooring license for the licensee's failure to correct any violation of this section or any applicable provision of this title within the timeframe set forth in a notice of violation issued by the Harbormaster.

2. Upon a determination that grounds for termination of a mooring license exist, the Harbormaster shall serve written notice of the termination in accordance with Section

1.05.030 to the licensee stating the grounds for the action, the effective date of the decision, and the right of the licensee to appeal the decision to the Harbor Commission.

The licensee shall have fourteen (14) days from the date on which notice is deemed served to request a hearing or else the decision of the Harbormaster shall be final.

Termination of a license for failure to pay any fees or based on the abandonment of a mooring shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission.

3. Upon termination of the mooring license, the licensee shall immediately remove their vessel(s) from the mooring. The City may impound any vessel not removed within ten (10) days of the termination date and thereafter dispose of it in the manner provided by 13-434

law. City -incurred costs for removal of the vessel may be charged against the licensee and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel.

4. If a timely appeal is filed, the process for revocation of mooring permits set forth in Section 17.70.020 shall be followed. (Ord. 2023-17 § 2, 2023) 13-435

Newport Beach City CouncilJuly 9, 2024

Newport Beach City Council
July 9, 2024