Newport Beach City Council
July 9, 2024

CITY OF
0 NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
July 9, 2024
Agenda Item No. 13
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, [email protected]
PREPARED BY: Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator - 949-644- 3236, [email protected]
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings
ABSTRACT:

The City of Newport Beach manages the tidelands in Newport Harbor, which includes parts of the harbor used for docking boats (called mooring fields) located beyond the pierhead lines, and areas on the shore for onshore moorings. For exclusive use of the harbor to moor a vessel, the City Council sets fair market value rent for these moorings.

In 2024, after multiple meetings and extensive public input and discussion, the Harbor Commission recommended that the City Council increase the mooring permit rental rates to current fair market value. Due to concerns raised by mooring permit holders regarding the increase in rates, City staff reviewed the Harbor Commission's recommendations. As a result, staff is providing alternative recommendations for the Council to consider. For the City Council's consideration and discussion are the Harbor Commission's recommendations and the staff's alternative recommendations regarding the rental rates and transferability of moorings.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly-,
b) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-46, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Setting Fair Market Value of Rent for Moorings Located Upon Tidelands in Newport Harbor; OR
c) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2024-15, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Sections 17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, and 17.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Mooring Permits and Licenses, and pass to second reading on July 23, 2024; and
d) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-47, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Setting the Fair Market Value of Rent for Moorings Located Upon Tidelands in Newport Harbor.
13-1

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

DISCUSSION:

Beacon Bav Bill
Pursuant to State of California statutes, the City holds in trust and administers certain tidelands and submerged lands (collectively, tidelands) in Newport Harbor on behalf of the people of the State, with oversight by the California State Lands Commission (SLC).

The City manages the public tidelands property under the guidance of the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978, as amended).

The tidelands are "Sovereign Lands" and were granted to the City primarily for the promotion and accommodation of commerce, fishing, recreational boating, and navigation. And, the Beacon Bay Bill generally limits use of the public lands to:

1. The establishment of a public harbor;

2. Public bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and recreational facilities open to the general public; and

3. For preservation of the lands in their natural state.

Outside of the public uses listed above, under certain conditions, the tidelands can be granted for private uses consistent with those specified in the trust. The conditions for private use include governing the use under a lease or permit agreement, limiting such agreement to no more than 50 years, and improving the tidelands at no expense to the State.

Additionally, when tidelands are reserved for exclusive use by third parties and not available for general public use, the City is required to obtain rent in exchange for that exclusive use. The Beacon Bay Bill provides that "flIn the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the city or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith. "
The City may charge different rates for different uses when it is supported by an appraisal that makes distinctions in value (i.e., an on -shore mooring versus an offshore mooring).

While the Beacon Bay Bill does not define discrimination, staff interprets that charging different rates for the same type of use that does not have a different value (e.g., a resident versus non-resident rate for the same mooring), would be a discrimination in rates and is prohibited by SLC.

Further, Section 6 of Article XVI of the State Constitution prohibits making a gift of public funds or gift of the State's public lands. The City acts as trustee and fiduciary of State tidelands in Newport Harbor pursuant to the Beacon Bay Bill. It is staff's understanding from discussions with SLC staff that charging less than fair market value to any individual or other entity privately using the public tidelands would be a gift of public funds or gift of public lands and is prohibited.
13-2

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

Beyond the City's obligations as trustee of the public tidelands in Newport Harbor, the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Sections 17.60.020(E) and 17.60.060(D) require that rental rates for the various tidelands uses throughout Newport Harbor are set based upon fair market value, as determined by an authorized appraiser and the City Council.

City Council Policy F-7-Income and Other Property also requires the City to receive fair market rent for private third party use of public lands. While there are exceptions that allow the City to receive less than fair market rent when the land is providing a community service or uses available to the public, private use of moorings does not qualify as a public benefit.

Moorings
Pursuant to NBMC Section 17.60.040, a permit is required for use of a mooring in Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands. There are approximately 478 onshore moorings (including approximately 44 permits issued to and managed by the Lido Isle Community Association) under the City's jurisdiction in Newport Harbor, which are in various locations around Balboa Island, Newport Island, Lido Isle, and along the bay side of the Balboa Peninsula. Vessels are limited to no more than 18 feet in length for onshore moorings.

There are approximately 731 offshore moorings (including approximately 79 permits issued to and managed by Balboa Yacht Club, and approximately 73 permits issued to and managed by Newport Harbor Yacht Club) under the City's jurisdiction in Newport Harbor, which are in various locations designated as "mooring fields" throughout the harbor. Vessels must not exceed the set length for the offshore mooring length.

A map of the on- and offshore mooring fields around Newport Harbor is included as Attachment A.

LVA re M9 mil :012M. 1 Z R. M_ Im M-ROT,
Following a 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury report titled "Newport Harbor Moorings: Are They Held in the Public Trust or for Private Profit?" which recommended establishing a regularly scheduled independent appraisal for the fair market value of mooring permit fees, the City Council conducted an extensive review of the mooring rates, discussing issues such as open -market transfers, transfer fees, and sub -rentals.

On November 23, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2010-132 (2010 Resolution) (Attachment E) to increase mooring rental rates to fair market value over a five-year period. Fair market value was determined to be 14% of the slip rates as established by the Newport Harbor Marina Index, an average of the slip rates at the low- to moderately priced marinas in Newport Harbor. This index was also used to set the slip rates for the City -owned Balboa Yacht Basin marina pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2010-134. After the phase -in period, the rate for a 40-foot mooring was set at $36.45 per linear foot per month, compared to the rate of $1.67 per linear foot per month in effect when the 2010 Resolution was approved. This was the first change to mooring rates since 1996.
13-3

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

In January 2015, the City Council directed the Harbor Commission to study the mooring rents and other related mooring issues and then return with recommendations. The Harbor Commission held four meetings to solicit input from the public, including mooring users and other interested parties. The Harbor Commission provided a mooring report with its recommendations to the City Council.

At a special meeting on June 16, 2015, the City Council considered a Harbor Commission mooring report and recommendations made by the SLC. The SLC noted that mooring permits do not convey a real property interest; and recommended the City obtain a real property appraisal. The City Council directed staff to conduct a fair market appraisal and return with a resolution setting the fair market value rent for both onshore and offshore moorings.

On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-17 (2016 Resolution) (Attachment F) based on an appraisal report by Netzer & Associates. The 2016 Resolution set rates at $2.91 per linear foot per month for offshore moorings and half of that rate ($1.46 per linear foot per month) for onshore moorings. The 2016 Resolution called for the rate to be adjusted annually by the lesser of 2% or the change in the consumer price index (CPI). Additionally, the 2016 Resolution allowed for the City to conduct a new appraisal of mooring rental rates in Newport Harbor after March 1, 2018, and every fifth year thereafter.

For reference, the current 2024 rental rate for onshore moorings is $1.67 per linear foot per month, and for offshore moorings is $3.35 per linear foot per month.

Harbor Commission Consideration
Pursuant to the 2016 Resolution and under the direction of the Harbor Commission subcommittee responsible for Harbor Commission Current Objectives Item 2.2, the City issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 21-53 on April 8, 2021, seeking proposals from qualified appraisers to determine the fair market rent for moorings in Newport Harbor.

Four proposals were received, and Netzer & Associates was contracted to perform the appraisal work. Netzer & Associates provided a report on onshore moorings, dated December 21, 2021, which was submitted for the Harbor Commission's review and consideration at three separate public meetings in early 2022 (Attachment G).

In late 2023, the appraiser was directed to evaluate the offshore moorings and provided a report dated December 26, 2023 (2023 Appraisal). The offshore mooring report was presented to the Harbor Commission at five separate public meetings between January and April 2024 (Attachment G).

On January 10, 2024, the Harbor Commission reviewed the results of the 2023 Appraisal.

Public comments were received, but no further action was taken by the Harbor Commission. On February 1, 2024, the Harbor Commission held a special meeting seeking additional public input on the 2023 Appraisal report. Extensive public comments were received, but no further action was taken by the Harbor Commission. 13-4

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

On February 14, 2024, the Harbor Commission held a regular meeting and discussed the 2023 Appraisal report. Further public comments were taken, including comments related to discrimination. No further action was taken by the Harbor Commission. On March 18, 2024 the Harbor Commission held a special meeting and took further comments.

At its meeting on April 10, 2024, the Harbor Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council on the fair market value rental rates for moorings, which are reflected in Resolution No. 2024-46 (Attachment 13):
• Establish the fair market rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings as equal to 24% of the City adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index. • After the January 2025 adjustment, all future mooring rental rate adjustments will coincide with annual City slip rate adjustments effective at the start of each new City fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025.
• The total mooring rate adjustments will be phased in beginning January 1, 2025, through a final adjustment on July 1, 2029, as per the schedule set forth in the presentation material provided during the April 10, 2024, Harbor Commission meeting (included in Attachment G).
• The 24% phased -in rate adjustment amounts per linear foot per mooring size, will be adjusted each year based on future annual adjustments per the City -adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index. These subsequent adjustments will be applied to the initial recommended rate adjustment and equally distributed and phased in over the same period of time.
• At the end of the phase -in period (July 1, 2029), the mooring rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor will be equal to 24% of the then average slip rates as determined by the City -adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index.

Table 1
Mooring Rental Rate Comparison
Source
Rate/LF/Month
Rent/Month
BYB Slip Rate — 40-foot
$52.32
$2,092.80
(July 1, 2024)
Current 40-foot Mooring Permit Rental Rates
$3.35
$134.00
(Reso No. 2016-17)
Offshore Mooring Appraisal — 40-foot
$16.00
$640.00
(Netzer, December 26, 2023)
City Mooring License Program — 40-foot
$15.00
$600.00
(March 1, 2024)
Harbor Commission Recommendation
$12.56
$502.40
(April 10, 2024) (24% of 2024 BYB Rate)
City Council 2010 Resolution
$7.32
$292.80
(Reso No. 2010-132) (14% of 2024 BYB Rate)
13-5

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

Table 1 compares the various rental rates, the appraisal conclusions, and the Harbor Commission's recommendation assuming full phase -in, and the slip rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin, for a 40-foot mooring permit:

The 2023 Appraisal did not take the newly created City Mooring License Program (City License) into account because the City License was implemented after the report was issued; however, the Harbor Commission did consider the City License rates (also included in Table 1 above) in its recommendation and felt it was an accurate reflection of the local market for moorings. The City License is different than the mooring permits in that the City owns and maintains the mooring tackle and the mooring is not transferrable.

Staff's Alternative Recommendations
Following the Harbor Commission's recommendations to the City Council, several mooring permit holders contacted the City, alleging conflicts of interest and discrimination in rental rates between different users of the tidelands.

Community Development Department staff reviewed the Harbor Commission's recommendations and the rates established for residential piers under Resolution No. 2015-10 and developed alternative recommendations for the City Council to consider.

The general considerations behind the alternative recommendations are:

Grandfather existing mooring permittees at current rates, with no changes to rates except for CPI adjustments-,
0 Phase out all private transfers of moorings-, and
Ensure future moorings are owned, managed and maintained through the City license program, referenced as the short-term mooring license regulations pursuant to Section 17.60.045 of the NBMC.

With these in mind, staff makes the following alternative recommendations:
a) Permit Rates — Grandfather Existing Rates
Existing mooring permittees will continue to be subject to the mooring rates established in Resolution No. 2016-17. This allows the current permit holders to continue to pay the same rates, with CPI adjustments or 2% maximum, until the permit is transferred (subject to the transfer conditions below) or the permit is relinquished.
b) Mooring Permit Transfers
Existing mooring permittees may privately transfer their permit to a new permit holder one time within four years, but no later than August 21, 2028 (Ordinance No. 2024-15, Attachment C). After August 21, 2028, or after the one-time private transfer (whichever occurs first), no further transfers are allowed. 13-6

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

If a death of a permittee occurs, the executor or administrator may hold the mooring permit for only one year. During that one-year period, the executor or administrator must secure a City -licensed mooring or find a new location for the vessel. c) Transferred Permits
Mooring permittees who obtained their permit through a private transfer during the initial four years after adoption of Ordinance No. 2024-15 will continue to pay the existing rates for four additional years from the date of transfer. After four years, the mooring permits will be converted to a City license and will be subject to the short-term mooring license rates established by Resolution No. 2023-62 (Attachment H). There is no City fee for converting the permit to a license. This alternative rate structure is outlined in Resolution No. 2024-47 (Attachment D).

The mooring rates approved under Resolution No. 2023-62, adjusts annually on July 1, are shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2
Length (LIF)
Mooring Type
License Fe (Monthly)
Rate/LF
Rent/Month
18 Onshore
$9.00
$162.00
30 Offshore
$13.00
$390.00
40 Offshore
$15.00
$600.00
50 Offshore
$17.50
$875.00
60 Offshore
$20.00
$1,200.00
95 Offshore
$22.00
$2,090.00
d) Maintenance of Mooring and Tackle
Existing mooring permittees or those who acquire permits through a private transfer during the four years after adoption of the resolution, and are subject to the existing mooring rates, are responsible for providing and maintaining the mooring and tackle pursuant to NBMC Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(b).

The City shall be responsible for the cost of providing and maintaining the mooring equipment and tackle for mooring users under the City's short-term mooring license program, and those whose permit has converted to a City license. 13-7

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

e) Future Mooring Holders
New mooring users under the City License are subject to short-term mooring rates established by Resolution No. 2023-62. The license for use of the mooring will be governed by the City's short-term mooring licenses regulations NBMC Section

17.60.045.
f) Yacht Clubs
The Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and the Lido Isle Community Association (LICA) are subject to the onshore mooring rates established in Resolution No. 2016-17 until August 31, 2032. Thereafter, the mooring permit will convert to a mooring license and subject to the short-term mooring rates established in Resolution No. 2023-62.

The above recommendations are reflected in the draft Ordinance No. 2024-15 (Attachment C) and license fee structure recommendations are drafted in Resolution No. 2024-47, (Attachment D). A redline strike out version of the ordinance is provided as Attachment K.

State Lands Commission (SLC) and California Coastal Commission The City's consideration of an increase to the rental rate for moorings in Newport Harbor has been brought to the attention of both the SLC and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal). City staff has been in contact with both agencies to discuss the matter and has provided copies of the materials provided to the Harbor Commission. After review of the appraisal reports and additional information submitted by the appraiser, SLC submitted a letter to the City, dated April 9, 2024, included as Attachment 1. SLC concluded the City can reasonably rely on the fair market rates provided in the 2023 Report.

Public Input
The City has received significant public input regarding the proposed changes to the mooring rates. Correspondence received on the matter was provided to the Harbor Commission for its consideration, and many community members voiced their opinions during public comments at the eight public meetings held by the Harbor Commission in 2022 and 2024.

Additionally, the Harbor Commission subcommittee tasked with reviewing the mooring rental rates met with representatives from the Newport Mooring Association (NMA). The NMA made a presentation during public comments at the Harbor Commission meetings.

Correspondence from the public that has been directed to City Council, and which was received by June 26, 2024, at 5 p.m. is included as Attachment J. 13-8

Ordinance No. 2024-15, Resolution Nos. 2024-46 & 2024-47: Harbor Commission Recommendations and Alternative Recommendations for Rental Rates for Moorings July 9, 2024

FISCAL IMPACT:

Revenues collected for mooring permits and licenses, including any increases in revenue pursuant to a change in the mooring rental rates, will be posted to the Tidelands Fund and Tidelands Capital Fund accounts in the Harbor Department, 10045451-551035, 10045451-551040, 10103-551035, and 10103-551040. The revenues collected pursuant to the currently approved 2016 Resolution are included in the budget for fiscal year 2024- 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061 (b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

NOTICING:

The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A — Map of Onshore and Offshore Moorings
Attachment B — Resolution 2024-46: Harbor Commission Recommendation Attachment C — Ordinance No. 2024-15: Alternative Recommendations Attachment D — Resolution 2024-47-. Alternative Fees
Attachment E — Resolution No. 2010-132
Attachment F —
Resolution No. 2016-17
Attachment G
— Harbor Commission Agendas, Staff Reports with Attachments (links) Attachment H —
Resolution No. 2023-62
Attachment I — Letter from State Lands Commission, dated April 9, 2024 Attachment J — Comments Received from the Public
Attachment K — Ordinance No. 2024-15 (redline)
13-9

'00e 1�
13-10

Attachment A
Map of Onshore and Offshore Moorings
13-11

210
iA V, C
E
,NNERY

VILLAGE
K, 00* in a
LIDO ' ' '"o K16—nd
11W P4NNINSULA
W AW
NOW
A
arbo
j Islan
H

COLLINS -------
ISLAND
Ne-port Pier NHYC Bay KV
, 05
Island I BALBOA
zz 'TPrDjjj L" �
�4 JISTA AU'1CA
MAN.

Aft
r- ---- ------ -------
BYC \1
--A --------- -
----------- P,
— —.a —, —A -&w2L.

Balboa Pier wim�

DWAR ILI
P I
City of Newport Beach
Moorings and Harbormaster CORONA
------ DEL MAR WAF
Mooring Areas 2 Fuel Dock Marina Park/Harbormaster Lookout Point Public Dock 11 Public Slips 1600 W. Balboa Blvd.

Pumpout Station Coast Guard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Big Corona Beach 9A9-270-8159
Marina Park/Harbormaster Harbor Patrol
[email protected] t
Boat Ramp Anchorage newportharbor.org
Ferry Crossing
13-12

Attachment B
Resolution No. 2024-46: Harbor Commission Recommendations 13-13

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-46

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE

FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RENT FOR MOORINGS

LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor-, WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands-,
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that provide options to use and enjoy the tidelands in Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of Newport Harbor-,
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6, NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(0) and City Council Policy Section F-7(D) require the City to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands-, WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser-, WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value-, WHEREAS, an appraisal report dated December 26, 2023, was prepared by Netzer & Associates and delivered to the City establishing the fair market value of moorings at 30% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index-,
WHEREAS, the Newport Harbor Marina Index was established pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2010-134, approved on December 6, 2010, and is the average of slip rates in the Newport Harbor's low or moderately priced marinas-, 13-14

Resolution No. 2024-46

WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission held a meeting on April 10, 2024, and considered the appraisal recommendations and unanimously recommended to the City Council adjusting mooring rents to reflect the current fair market value rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on July 9, 2024, to receive and consider the City Harbor Commission's recommendation regarding fair market value rental rates for moorings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the record in connection with this resolution.

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

Section 1: Resolution No. 2016-17 is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in this resolution provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rates (and adjustments) constitute fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent established in this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees with a mooring located over City managed tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:
a) Establishing the fair market rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings as equal to 24% of the City adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index used for determining slip rental rates at the Balboa Yacht Basin. b) After the January 2025 adjustment, all future mooring rental rate adjustments will coincide with annual city slip rate adjustments effective at the start of each new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025.
c) The total mooring rate adjustments will be phased in beginning January 1, 2025, through a final adjustment on July 1, 2029, as per the table:
13-15

Resolution No. 2024-46

Price Per Linear Foot Per Month ($)
Mooring
Lengths/Ft
Jan 1, 2025
July 1, 2025
July 1, 2026
July 1, 2027
July 1, 2028
July 1, 2029
18 2.27

2.88 4.08

5.29 6.50

7.71 25

3.74 4.19

5.08 5.98

6.87 7.77
30 3.91

4.53 5.78

7.02 8.26

9.50 35

3.98 4.68

6.06 7.45

8.84 10.22
40 4.16

5.04 6.78

8.53 10.28

12.02 45

4.19 5.09

6.90 8.70

10.50 12.30
50 4.42

5.54 7.79

10.04 12.29

14.54 60

4.66 6.02

8.76 11.49

14.22 16.96
70 4.74

6.19 9.09

11.98 14.88

17.78 d) The 24% phased -in rate adjustment amounts per linear foot per mooring size, will be adjusted each year based on future annual adjustments per the city adopted Newport Harbor Marina Index. These subsequent adjustments will be applied to the initial recommended rate adjustment and equally distributed and phased in over the same period.

Section 3: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.

Section 4: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
13-16

Resolution No. 2024-46

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

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

ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2024.

Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:

Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
-7A(1,- �� -
AaronA(f.—Harp
City Ajorney
13-17

Attachment C
Ordinance No. 2024-15: Alternative Recommendations
13-18

ORDINANCE NO. 2024-15

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, AND

17.60.045 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATED TO MOORING PERMITS AND LICENSES
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach ("Charter") vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California; WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, the City has adopted rules and regulations for Newport Harbor, which are contained in Title 17 (Harbor Code) ("Title 17") of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC");
WHEREAS, members of the public may moor their vessels in Newport Harbor by obtaining a mooring license, mooring permit, or mooring sub -permit under Sections

17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) and 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the NBMC;
WHEREAS, additional revisions to Sections 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) and

17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) of the NBMC are desired to update the process for authorizing the mooring of vessels in Newport Harbor, in furtherance of complying with the Beacon Bay Bill; and
WHEREAS, the City shall file a copy of this ordinance with the California Department of Boating and Waterways prior to its adoption and at least thirty (30) days prior to its effective date, as required by California Harbor and Navigations Code Section 660(a).
13-19

Ordinance No. 2024-15

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

Section 1: The City Council hereby approves the amendments to Sections

17.60.010, 17.60.020, 17.60.040, and 17.60.045 of the NBMC, as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.

Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds regulations of mooring permits and licenses located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the mooring permits and licenses contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Lastly, the City Council finds regulations of mooring permits and licenses for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 5: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections, subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. 13-20

Ordinance No. 2024-15

Section 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) calendar days after its adoption.

This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 9th day of July, 2024, and adopted on the 23rd day of July, 2024, by the following vote, to -wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

WILL O'NEILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

LEILANI 1. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
AARJ C. HARP�OTY ATTORNEY
Attachment(s): Exhibit A — Amendments to Chapter 17.60 of the NBMC 13-21

Exhibit "A"

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

Chapter 17.60

HARBOR PERMITS AND LEASES
Sections:

17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.

17.60.015 Application for Harbormaster Permits.

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

17.60.030 Pier Permits for Noncommercial Piers.

17.60.040 Mooring Permits.

17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.

17.60.050 Houseboats.

17.60.060 Public Trust Lands.

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

17.60.010 Public Trust Lands —General.

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

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

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

17.60.020 Application for Pier/Mooring Permits, Licenses or the Lease of Public Trust Lands.
13-22

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

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

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

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

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

17.60.040 Mooring Permits.

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

B. Issuance of Permit —Conditions. The Harbormaster, in furtherance of the tideland grants to the City, may issue a mooring permit or mooring sub -permit to allow the mooring permittee or mooring sub-permittee to temporarily use a portion of the waters of Newport Harbor for the mooring of a vessel if the Harbormaster makes the findings set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1). A mooring permittee may hold up to two mooring permits at any time. A mooring permittee that held or continues to hold more than two 13-23

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

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

In addition, the Lido Isle Community Association ("LICA") has permits for onshore moorings on Lido Isle. These organizations shall hold their respective permits under the yacht club, or respective organization name, for the moorings identified by the City as under their respective control at the time of enactment of the ordinance codified in this section. The yacht clubs and LICA shall be solely responsible for managing moorings under their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under their control to yacht club members and members of LICA, respectively. The yacht clubs and LICA shall keep accurate records of the name and address of the club members and community association members to which each mooring has been assigned and the corresponding length of each vessel. The yacht clubs and LICA may not sell or otherwise transfer the moorings under their control to a third party that is not a member of the yacht club or LICA. Mooring records and 24/7 emergency contact information shall be provided annually to the Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1 st. b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (114) feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen (114) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the assigned live -aboard vessel.
c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor.

An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable standards and those set forth in Section 17.05.140(D)(1).

2. Permit Requirements. Prior to August 22, 2024, the City issued a mooring permit to a maximum of two (2) persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. The mooring permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length, and assigned vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully comply with the following conditions:
13-24

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

1. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the permittee is subject to relocation 13-25

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

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

3. Perm ittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or transferred once no later than August 21, 2028, to, only the following:
a. A natural person(s) including, but not limited to, an immediate family member, which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree of consanguinity;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will or administering a probated estate that holds a mooring permit, but only for one (1) year following the death of the permittee;
c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. A marine contractor, or marine support service provider, holding a mooring permit used to provide current or ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services (such as maintenance or dredging);
e. Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth education in boating and marine activities; Kerckhoff Marine Laboratories for the purpose of marine and oceanographic research; and American Legion Post 291 for the purpose of serving veterans and their families and supplying them with affordable access to boating and harbor activities; or similar marine educational entities; or f. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 201 1.C. Plans and 13-26

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

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

D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05.120.

E. Transfer of Permit. Mooring permits are nontransferable, with the exception of mooring permits that were issued prior to August 22, 2024, which existing mooring permittees as of August 22, 2024, may transfer once, provided the transfer is completed no later than August 21, 2028.

F. Procedures for Transfers. Permits shall not be transferred without the prior written approval of the Harbormaster. The Harbormaster may approve the transfer of a mooring permit subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) under the procedures set out below:1. The mooring permittee(s) (or, if the permittee is deceased or incapacitated, the transferee) shall submit to the Harbormaster:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by the Harbormaster); and
b. Documentation that the proposed new mooring permittee (transferee) qualifies as a mooring permittee under subsection (13)(3) of this section.

2. If transferee intends to purchase an assigned vessel but does not have title on the assigned vessel owned by the mooring permittee and transferor at the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to the Harbormaster a copy of a California Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current registration (or, in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's ownership of the assigned vessel or, in the case of an onshore mooring, a photograph of the assigned vessel if it is not subject to vessel registration laws. The Harbormaster shall inspect the vessel at its office for compliance with Section 17.25.020(H) before the assignment is approved; or 13-27

b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbormaster within the sixty (60) day period, then the vessel or the mooring may be impounded, and the mooring may be deemed vacant and assigned pursuant to subsections (G) and (H) of this section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with all provisions of this subsection, the Harbormaster must find all of the following conditions to approve the transfer of a mooring permit:
a. The mooring permittee no longer owns the assigned vessel or has retained ownership of the assigned vessel and has permanently vacated the mooring; 13-28

b. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions for issuance of a permit in subsection (B) of this section;
c. The transferor or transferee has reported to the Harbormaster the price paid for the mooring permit, and has paid to the City the required transfer fee; and d. The transferor represents that the person did not discriminate against any transferee or prospective transferee because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, age or any other impermissible basis under law.

8. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.

9. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit, subject to the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee imposed by the City or the conversion of a permit to a license.

10. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of the mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third party's website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit transfers.

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

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

1. Deemed Vacant Moorings. The Harbormaster may assign deemed vacant moorings through the issuance of sub -permits at his or her own discretion. Sub -permits may be renewed upon availability. The mooring permittee may reclaim its mooring upon three days' prior written notice to the Harbormaster of its intent to return the assigned vessel to the mooring. A "deemed vacant mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon which:
a. An assigned vessel has not been attached for thirty (30) consecutive days or more; or
13-29

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

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

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

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

3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid by the mooring sub-permittee. If the mooring is damaged by a vessel assigned by the City, or the City's agent, the City shall arrange for the repair of the mooring with a qualified vendor and provide notice to the permittee of the occurrence and the arranged repair date. Should the sub-permittee fail to pay for the damage for any reason, the City will pay for the 13-30

required repairs to the mooring, and then seek reimbursement from the sub-permittee.

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

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

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

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

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

City owned and operated moorings may be reserved in advance.

I . Mooring Permit Transfer Nonrefundable Fee. The City shall charge the mooring permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under and subject to the limitations set forth in subsection (E) of this section in an amount equal to seventy-five (75) percent of the annual mooring rent as established by City Council resolution. This transfer fee represents a one-time nonrefundable transfer fee for the use of a mooring. A mooring permit transfer fee shall not be required if:
1 . The transfer is from the mooring permittee to the same mooring permittee as trustor of an inter vivos trust, living trust or other similar estate planning tool; or

2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)(8) and (9) of this section.

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

Once a mooring permit is surrendered, the mooring permittee shall remove the assigned vessel and/or the mooring equipment thirty (30) days after written notice of surrender of the permit, or, upon failure to remove the mooring equipment, title shall vest in the City and the City shall compensate the mooring permittee the fair value for 13-31

the mooring equipment, less rent or fees owed, as provided in subsection (L) of this section.

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

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

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

L. Moorings Reverting Back to City. Moorings authorized by a mooring permit shall revert back to the City one (1) year after the death of all natural persons named as 11 mooring permitee(s)" as of August 21, 2024. In the event a mooring reverts back to the City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, death, failure to provide documents pursuant to subsection (F) of this section, or for any other reason other than as set forth in subsection (K) of this section, the following shall apply:

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

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

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

M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.
1 . General. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that 13-32

requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed the established length of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring row lengths.

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

3. Action on Extension Request. For extension requests that require relocation to a larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more. The Harbormaster may approve the 13-33

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

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

4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster approves a request for extension of mooring length, such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with their vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval;
13-34

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

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

17.60.045 Short -Term Mooring Licenses.

A. General. As of August 22, 2024, all new moorings approved by the City will be issued as a mooring license pursuant to this section.

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

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

B. Term. Mooring licenses shall be valid for one month and may be renewed, provided the licensee has paid in full the license fee, any late fees and is not in violation of any provision of the license or this title.
13-35

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

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

D. Eligibility Criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. Issuance of Mooring License, The Harbormaster may issue mooring licenses subject to the conditions set forth in this subsection.
13-36

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

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

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

4. Live-aboards shall be prohibited except that this provision shall not apply to mooring permittees that also held a live -aboard permit as of September 1, 2028, whose mooring permit converted to a mooring license.

5. The City may temporarily assign a mooring that is vacant or unoccupied to another vessel through the issuance of a mooring sub -permit in accordance with Section

17.60.040(H).

6. A licensee shall move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster. Upon the licensee's failure to do so, the City or a contractor retained by the City may move the assigned vessel at the licensee's expense.

7. A licensee shall be subject to relocation or reassignment to another mooring pursuant to Section 17.60.040(B)(2)(1).

8. The Harbormaster may board the assigned vessel at any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard.

9. A licensee shall defend and indemnify the City and any other government entity with jurisdiction against any claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of, the mooring license except where the claim or loss arises from a sub-permittee's damage of the mooring, or out of the negligence and/or misconduct of a person assigned the mooring as a mooring sub-permittee under Section 17.60.040(H).

10. A licensee shall notify the City within five (5) days of any change in the information that was provided in their mooring license application including, but not limited to, a change in ownership interest in the assigned vessel.

G. Extended Vessel Absence. Vacancy or absence from the mooring by the assigned vessel for at least twenty-five (25) consecutive days shall be deemed abandonment of the mooring and shall result in automatic termination of the mooring license. 13-37

Termination of license based on abandonment shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission. The following situations shall not constitute a mooring being deemed abandoned:

1. The absence or vacancy from the mooring, which shall not exceed six months, with the prior written approval of the Harbormaster.

2. The licensee is in the process of changing the assigned vessel, provided that (a) written notice of the intent to remove and replace the assigned vessel is given to the Harbormaster prior to removal of the vessel, (b) all required information and documentation for the new vessel, including proof of ownership or registration, is submitted to the Harbormaster within ninety (90) days of the date of the written notice, and (c) the vessel is made available for inspection by the Harbormaster for compliance with Section 17.25.020(H).

H. Mooring of a Tender and Request to Extend Mooring Length.

1. A single tender, which serves as access to and from shore to the assigned vessel, may be secured to the assigned vessel or to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The tender must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct other vessels.

2. A licensee may request a mooring length extension in accordance with Section

17.60.040(M).

1. Termination.

1. The Harbormaster may terminate a mooring license for the licensee's failure to correct any violation of this section or any applicable provision of this title within the timeframe set forth in a notice of violation issued by the Harbormaster.

2. Upon a determination that grounds for termination of a mooring license exist, the Harbormaster shall serve written notice of the termination in accordance with Section

1.05.030 to the licensee stating the grounds for the action, the effective date of the decision, and the right of the licensee to appeal the decision to the Harbor Commission.

The licensee shall have fourteen (14) days from the date on which notice is deemed served to request a hearing or else the decision of the Harbormaster shall be final.

Termination of a license for failure to pay any fees or based on the abandonment of a mooring shall not be appealable to the Harbor Commission.

3. Upon termination of the mooring license, the licensee shall immediately remove their vessel(s) from the mooring. The City may impound any vessel not removed within ten (10) days of the termination date and thereafter dispose of it in the manner provided by law. City -incurred costs for removal of the vessel may be charged against the licensee and collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel.
13-38

4. If a timely appeal is filed, the process for revocation of mooring permits set forth in Section 17.70.020 shall be followed. (Ord. 2023-17 § 2, 2023) 13-39

Attachment D
Resolution No. 2024-47: Alternative Fees
13-40

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-47

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE

FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RENT FOR MOORINGS

LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that provide options to use and enjoy the tidelands in Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6, NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(0) and City Council Policy F-7 Section (D) require the City to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands; WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser; WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value;
WHEREAS, an appraisal report dated December 26, 2023, was prepared by Netzer & Associates and delivered to the City establishing the fair market value of moorings at 30% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index;
WHEREAS, the Newport Harbor Marina Index was established pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2010-134, approved on December 6, 2010, and is the average of slip rates in the Newport Harbor's low or moderately priced marinas; 13-41

Resolution No. 2024-47

WHEREAS, short-term mooring license fees for moorings held pursuant to Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) were established pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2023-62 approved on November 15, 2023; WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission held a meeting on April 10, 2024, and considered the appraisal recommendations and unanimously recommended to the City Council adjusting the mooring rents to reflect the current fair market value rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on July 9, 2024, related to moorings rents to consider the recommendations of the Harbor Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the record in connection with this resolution.

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

Section 1: The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in this resolution provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rates (and adjustments) constitute fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit and/or license, shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent established in this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees and/or licensees with a mooring located over City managed tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:
a) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall continue to apply to an existing mooring permittee issued a mooring permit pursuant to Section

17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the NBMC that has not been transferred as of the effective date of this resolution.
13-42

Resolution No. 2024-47

b) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall apply for four years from the transfer date to mooring permittees that obtained their permit through a transfer pursuant to Section 17.60.040(E) of the NBMC between August 22, 2024 and August 21, 2028. Four years from the transfer date, the mooring permit will convert to a mooring license pursuant to Sections

17.60.040(B)(3), 17.60.040(E), and 17.60.040(F)(1 1) of the NBMC and the mooring licensee shall pay the short-term mooring license rent established by Resolution No. 2023-62.
c) The mooring rent established by Resolution No. 2016-17 shall apply to the Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and Lido Isle Community Association until August 31, 2032. As of September 1, 2032, the aforementioned yacht clubs shall pay the short-term mooring license rent established by Resolution No. 2023-62.

Section 2: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution.

Section 3: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061 (b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
13-43

Resolution No. 2024-47

Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5: This resolution shall take effect on August 22, 2024, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 9th day of July, 2024.

Will O'Neill
Mayor
ATTEST:

Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaro C. Harp L)
�. I
City jorney
13-44

Attachment E
Resolution No. 2010-132
13-45

RESOLUTION 2010-132

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH

RELATING TO HARBOR CHARGES, SPECIFICALLY

ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE MOORINGS
WHEREAS, the City's tidelands trust, also known as the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978), dedicates certain tide and submerged lands ("Tidelands") to be held in trust by the City on behalf of the people of California; and WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill directs that the City manage these lands as follows:
(1) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of a public harbor; and for the construction, maintenance, and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways, and streets, and other utilities, structures, and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion or accommodation of commerce and navigation. (2) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of public bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the general public; and for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operation of all works, buildings, facilities, utilities, structures, and appliances incidental, necessary, or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of any such uses. (3) For the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the lands in their natural state and the reestablishment of the natural state of the lands so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and which favorably affect the scenery and climate of the area; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that effective management and conduct of a public harbor obligates it to charge appropriate and non-discriminatory rates for the use of tidelands, without conferring a benefit to private individuals for the use of public property in violation of the California Constitution's prohibition on gifts of public funds; and WHEREAS, the City believes that there are at least two types of fees or charges in the Harbor — fees based on the cost of providing a service (such as processing a regional general permit) and charges based on the fair market value use of a public asset (such as some commercial pier charges, mooring charges and more); and WHEREAS, the City believes that various harbor activities should be set at or near fair market value to avoid granting or conveying Tidelands to any private party; and WHEREAS, the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Harbor Charges ("Committee") on July 27, 2010 with the intent to have the Committee review harbor charges, including, but not limited to:

Fees based on the cost of providing a service;
Mooring rates — onshore and offshore;
Balboa Yacht Basin charges — slips, garages, and apartments; and 13-46

Commercial piers not already on leases.

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that onshore and offshore moorings should remain a more affordable method of bringing boating to the general public (more affordable than berthing), consistent with the City's General Plan (Harbor and Bay Element, 5.2 — Provide a variety of berthing and mooring opportunities throughout Newport Harbor, reflecting state and regional demand for slip size and affordability); and
WHEREAS, the Committee has held public meetings with stakeholder groups and has made a proposal to the City Council to update fees that are based on the cost of providing a specific service, and these charges were updated by the full City Council on November 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has held public meetings with stakeholder groups and has made a proposal to the City Council to increase mooring rates over a five period duration (starting with an increase in 2011 and ending in advance of the 2015 billing) to roughly 14% of an average of low- to moderately -priced berthing rates in Newport Harbor. To arrive at this number, the Committee reviewed:
• The 2007 Orange County Grand Jury's report entitled, Newport Harbor Moorings:

Are They Held in the Public Trust or for Private Profit? Which recommended, among other things, that mooring rates be based on a percentage of slip or berthing rates (Recommendation R-6); and
• Mooring to berthing rates in a number of harbors up and down the California coast, including San Diego, Mission Bay, Morro Bay, Monterey, and Pillar Point; and • Rate proposals or concepts offered by other groups, including the Newport Mooring Association; and
• Testimony offered in the public record at meetings associated with mooring charge increases.

Now, therefore be it:

RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the above recitals are true and correct and constitute findings that support the action taken herein; and be it also RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that the fair market value of offshore moorings within Newport Harbor is 14% of a Newport Harbor Marina Index Rate and that the fair market value of onshore moorings is half of that resulting dollar amount; and be it also
RESOLVED that City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby amends the City's Master Fee Resolution to set the following charges for offshore and onshore moorings:
1 ) Starting with the 2011 billings (sent out in mid -January 2011), a one year permit for an offshore mooring shall be set at 7.1% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and 2) 2012 billings shall be set at 8.8% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; 3) 2013 billings shall be set at 10.5% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; 13-47

4) 2014 billings shall be set at 12.3% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and 5) 2015 billings shall be set at 14.0% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and 6) That successive years' rates be set at 14.0% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index while a one-year permit for an onshore mooring shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount and both offshore and onshore moorings shall be adjusted annually within the Master Fee Resolution based on the Newport Harbor Marina Index; and 7) Starting in 2011, in the event that a person is assigned an offshore mooring permit off of the mooring waiting list or interest list, that mooring permit's rate shall be set at 14.0% of the Newport Harbor Marina Index rate; if the mooring permit is for an onshore mooring, that mooring permit's rate shall be set at half of that resulting dollar amount; and be it also RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby directs that the Newport Harbor Marina Index include the following marinas in 2010 and 2011, but that the City's Harbor Resources Manager or his or her designee may adjust or substitute the marinas within the Index in 2012 and beyond via posting the indexed marinas on the City's website, provided that the substitute marinas are considered low- or moderately -priced marinas in Newport Harbor:
• Ardell Marina
• Newport Dunes Marina
• Harbor Marina
• Lido Yacht Anchorage
• Port Calypso
• Swales Marina; and
• Bayside Village Marina
....and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that Harbor Resources staff is directed to monitor the Newport Harbor mooring market to ensure that this Resolution's fee increases appropriately reflect market conditions. If in the opinion of the Harbor Resources Manager, the mooring increases within this Resolution are, over time, not reflective of mooring market conditions, the Manager shall bring this to the attention of the City Manager and City Council; and be it also
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the price adjustments for moorings set forth in this Resolution for 2013 and successive years shall take place only if the City Council has completed its open and public review, analysis, and where applicable, price adjustments of Other Harbor Charges on or before September 30, 2012. The Other Harbor Charges to be reviewed and analyzed are slips, garages, and apartments at the Balboa Yacht Basin, commercial piers not already on leases, and residential piers, including rentals of residential piers.
13-48

ADOPTED this 23' day of November, 2010.

ATTEST:
�6m--

LEILANI BROWN
City Clerk
�'e

KEITH CURRY
Mayor of Newport Beach
L�0 R N I P-'
13-49

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010-132 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by. the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23r" day of November, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Mayor Curry
Noes: Gardner, Daigle

Absent: None
Abstain: Webb
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 231�6 day of November, 2010. TWUT� CL
VC4ityler
ty
ewport Beach, California
�Seal)
13-50

ADOPTED this 23' day of November, 2010.

ATTEST:
�6m--

LEILANI BROWN
City Clerk
�'e

KEITH CURRY
Mayor of Newport Beach
L�0 R N I P-'
13-49

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010-132 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by. the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 23r" day of November, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Mayor Curry
Noes: Gardner, Daigle

Absent: None
Abstain: Webb
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 231�6 day of November, 2010. TWUT� CL
VC4ityler
ty
ewport Beach, California
�Seal)
13-50

Attachment F
Resolution No. 2016-17
13-51

RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT

BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE RENT

FOR MOORINGS LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT
HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor-, WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to third parties to construct/maintain moorings upon tidelands;
WHEREAS, the City offers two types of moorings, onshore and offshore, that provide an affordable option allowing residents of California to use and enjoy the tidelands in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, onshore moorings are located on the perimeter of the shore within Newport Harbor, and offshore moorings are located offshore within the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the mooring permits issued by the City do not convey any underlying property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill, Cafifornia Constitution Article 16, Section 6, NBMC Subsection 17.60.060(D) and City Council Policy F-7(D) require the City to receive fair market value rent from third parties using the tidelands; WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market value rent based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser; WHEREAS, an appraisal report was prepared by Netzer & Associates and delivered to the City and has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, which report is made a part of the record for this matter;
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-132, which established fair market value rental rates for onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to periodically reviewing tidelands rent to ensure the rent is reflective of fair market value,
13-52

Resolution No. 2016-17

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the City Council held a special meeting to receive and consider a comprehensive study conducted by the City's Harbor Commission regarding various aspects of mooring permits, including, but not limited to, fair market value rental rates;
WHEREAS, at the City Council's special meeting, the City Council considered the feedback and ideas gathered during the Harbor Commission's study and outreach meetings, and directed staff to bring back the mooring fair market value rental amounts in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all documents and comments in the record in connection with this resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

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

Section 2: Resolution No. 2010-132 is hereby repealed. The City Council finds that the rent provisions contained in this resolution provide for the charging of fair market value rent and that the rental rate (and adjustments) constitutes fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands, which findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines the rent for moorings located upon tidelands, operating under a permit, shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The rent established in this resolution shall only be applicable to permittees with a mooring located over City managed tidelands. The fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands in Newport Harbor shall be set and adjusted as follows:

Onshore Mooring $17.50* linear foot *Adjusted annually by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers ("CPI"),
Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County Region
or 2%, whichever is less.

The City may conduct a new appraisal of
mooring rental rates in Newport Harbor after
March 1, 2018, and every fifth (5 1h) year
thereafter, as part of the appraisal required by
Resolution No. 2012-96, or any successor
resolution.

Offshore Mooring $35.00* linear foot
13-53

Resolution No. 2016-17

Section 3:' The City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 because the 'mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value rent established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands. Lastly, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value rent for moorings located upon tidelands is not a project under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 26 1h day of January, 2016.

ATTEST:
464t�
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
Dianb B. Dixon
Mayor
'%��-ORNAP'
13-54

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leflani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2016-17 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly hel�d on the 2 6th day of January, 2016, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Member Peatter, Council Member Duffield, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon, Mayor Dixon
NAYS: Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 27 1h day of January, 2016,
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)
Z%Lf FO""
13-55

Attachment G
Harbor Commission Agendas, Staff Reports with Attachments (linked due to file size)
January 12, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2805307&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 114)
February 9, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2806902&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 46)
March 21, 2022
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2810682&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 3) -
http://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=c35cOd29-a9O9-4011-9e7a- 2f47f6e77a4b.docx
13-56

January 10. 2024
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2939053&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 184) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=63cf8c86-e79d-401 1 -aed4- 97e2954a379f.docx
February 1. 2024
Agenda-
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2946706&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 3) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=41f3735f-c230-4286-a4cd- df716591 b33f.docx
February 14. 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2946948&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 50) —
https://newportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=e9l 81 a03-6d4l-459b-8150- 1 c028b214316.docx
March 18. 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms . newportbeachca. gov/WE B/DocView. aspx? id =294901 O&d bid =O&repo=CN B Staff Report (see page 45) —
https:Hnewportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=81 aa8dac-f8a5-4c91 -be30- b2lOabelfcc3.docx
April 10, 2024
Agenda—
https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/DocView.aspx?id=2952906&dbid=O&repo=CNB Staff Report (see page 56) —
https:Hnewportbeach.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=5a3dO2dd-3ac7-47c1 -acd5- d23af8411275.docx
13-57

Attachment H
Resolution No. 2023-62
13-58

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-62

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE FAIR

MARKET VALUE LICENSE FEE FOR SHORT-TERM

MOORINGS LOCATED UPON TIDELANDS IN NEWPORT
HARBOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1978 Beacon Bay Bill, as amended, ("Beacon Bay Bill") the City of Newport Beach ("City") acts on behalf of the State of California as the trustee of tidelands located within the City's limits, including Newport Harbor; WHEREAS, the Beacon Bay Bill and Chapter 17.60 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") allow the City to issue permits to members of the public to construct, maintain, and use moorings upon those tidelands, WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2023 meeting, the Harbor Commission considered alternatives to mooring permits and mooring sub -permits by which members of the public would be able to use moorings in Newport Harbor and recommended by a vote of 6-0 (with one Commissioner absent) the creation of short-term mooring licenses; WHEREAS, at the same meeting, the Harbor Commission also reviewed and considered an appraisal by Netzer & Associates, dated August 2, 2023 ("Netzer Appraisal"), that analyzed the fair market value of rent for use of onshore and offshore moorings held by the City ("City moorings") under a short-term mooring license; WHEREAS, based on the Netzer Appraisal and documents and comments received at the meeting, the Harbor Commission further recommended: (a) that the short- term mooring license fee be set in accordance with the Netzer Appraisal, with subsequent changes to be based on adjustments to the index rate used to determine the rent for Balboa Yacht Basin slips ("Balboa Yacht Basin index rate"), (b) for the Harbor Commission to have the ability to re-evaluate subsequent changes in the mooring license fee and whether to continue the use of the Balboa Yacht Basin index rate if the City Council were to change the calculation of the Balboa Yacht Basin index rate or decide to utilize a different methodology to establish rents for the Balboa Yacht Basin, and (c) that persons who wish to join the waitlist for the short-term mooring licenses be charged an initial fee and annual fee to cover the cost associated with maintaining the waitlist, which fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council; ('_,itv of Newpoft Bea( 13-59

Resolution No. 2023-62

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2023-17, which is being introduced concurrently with this resolution, would add NBMC Section 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) to provide a process for the issuance of short-term mooring licenses that would allow the public to use onshore and offshore moorings in Newport Harbor for a renewable one - month term;
WHEREAS, like mooring permits, short-term mooring licenses issued by the City do not convey any underlying property interest, and instead only allow for the temporary mooring of a vessel upon the waters of Newport Harbor;
WHEREAS, California Constitution Article 16, Section 6, NBMC Section

17.60.020(E) and City Council Policy F-7 require the users of public tidelands be subject to rental or lease charges reflective of the fair market value related to such use, as determined by the City Council,
WHEREAS, the City Council has the exclusive discretion to determine fair market value rental or lease charges based, in part, upon the findings of a City -selected appraiser; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Netzer Appraisal as well as all other documents and comments in the record in connection with this resolution.

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

Section 1: The City Council does hereby find that the rent provisions contained in this resolution provide for the charging of a fair market short-term mooring license fee and that the license fee (and adjustments) constitutes fair market value rent for the City moorings. These findings are made by the City Council in its exclusive discretion but are based, in part, on the information in the appraisal of its City -selected appraiser and, in addition, on other testimony and documents in the record for this matter. The City Council further finds and determines the license fee for City moorings used pursuant to a short- term mooring license shall be set in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. The license fee for City moorings shall be set as follows:
('-,it,v of Newpoft Beach 13-60

Resolution No. 2023-62

Length
(LF)
Mooring Type
License Fee (monthly)
$/LF
Total
18 Onshore
$9.00
$162.00
30 Offshore
$13.00
$390.00
40 Offshore
$15.00
$600.00
50 Off hore
$17.50
$875.00
60 Offshore
$20.00
$1,200.00
95 Offshore
$22.00
$2,090.00
Section 2: The short-term mooring license fee shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by the annual percentage change to the index rate used to determine rental increases for the Balboa Yacht Basin. The Harbor Commission shall re-evaluate subsequent changes in the mooring license fee and whether to continue the use of the Balboa Yacht Basin index rate if the City Council changes the calculation of the index rate or decide to utilize a different methodology to establish rents for the Balboa Yacht Basin, which recommendations, if any, shall be sent to the City Council for consideration.

Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.

Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

City of Newpoft Beach 13-61

Resolution No. 2023-62

Section 5: The City Council finds the setting of fair market value license fee for moorings located upon tidelands is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value license fee for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because the mooring rent contemplates the continued use of existing facilities, with no expansion of the proposed use. Further, the City Council finds the setting of fair market value license fee for moorings located upon tidelands is entitled to a Statutory Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a)(1) because the fair market value license fee established by the City Council will be used to meet operating expenses within the tidelands.

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

ADOPTED this 14 th day of November, 2023
ATTEST:

L" 41 - M62��
Leilani 1. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
k C, . ff'ot,
A�r& C. Harp
City Attorney
Citv of Newpoft Beach 13-62

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.

CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
1, Leilani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-62 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 141h day of November, 2023; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Mayor Noah Blom, Mayor Pro Tern Will O'Neill, Councilmember Brad Avery Councilmember Robyn Grant, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Erik Weigand
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 15th day of November, 2023.

S""p
i 1. Brow -
Leilani wn �7'
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
:�- X)U
Nz,4-1 F0 R!!�
City of Newport Beach 13-63

Attachment I
Letter from State Lands Commission, Dated April 9, 2024 13-64

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GAVIN NEWSOM, Govemor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite I 00-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
April 9, 2024
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Via email to: LWooding4newportbeachca.gov
JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TFY CA Re/ay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1800
Subject: State Lands Commission staff review of City of Newport Beach Mooring Rate Appraisal
Dear Ms. Whitlinger,
Commission staff understands that the City of Newport Beach is reassessing mooring rates for Newport Bay to ensure they reflect fair market value, and the City's Harbor Commission contracted for an appraisal to serve as a basis of the rate update (commonly referred to as the Netzer Appraisal). Harbor Commission subcommittee members and staff requested that Commission staff provide a review of the Netzer appraisal.

Commission staff regularly provide informal advice to assist trustees in meeting their obligations under their granting statutes, and in that spirit agreed to review the appraisal. Staff acknowledges that Public Trust Lands often have unique characteristics that make them difficult to compare to other properties. As described more fully below, staff believes that the City can reasonably rely on the appraisal for setting mooring rates.

As background, the California legislature granted the state's tidelands and submerged lands in Newport Bay to the City of Newport Beach. The City has authority to set rents and rates for this granted land. The Commission oversees the City of Newport Beach to ensure it is complying with its grant statutes,] its fiduciary 1 Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, and as amended.
13-65

Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
April 9, 2024

duties to the State,2 and the Public Trust Doctrine.3 As part of its fiduciary duties to the State, and to avoid making unconstitutional gifts of public property, the City must charge fair market rates for uses of granted sovereign land. The City, however, is not required to obtain the State Lands Commission's approval before adopting new mooring rates and is not required to use the same rent -setting methodologies as the State Lands Commission. Nor are any of the State's roughly 70 trustees of granted sovereign land.

Appraisals of submerged lands and tidelands are difficult, and we are aware that appraisers could reasonably employ different methodologies to arrive at fair market values. Staff is also mindful that the legislature entrusted management of Newport Bay, including establishing mooring rates, to the City's discretion - provided it acts within the contours of its granting statutes and fiduciary duties. Staff reviewed the appraisal at a high level to determine whether we believed the City could reasonably rely on its concluded fair market mooring rates.

After reviewing the City's appraisal, staff believes its approach, methodologies, and its recommendations are reasonable. However, there are some areas where the appraisal would benefit from clarification or revision.

First, staff disagrees that residential land values should be used as a basis for valuing the offshore moorings, because the moorings' use is not connected with the residential use. Staff notes, however, that the rates based on upland residential values were ultimately not recommended by the appraisal.

Second, the appraisal references proposed mooring rate increases by the San Diego Unified Port District, another trustee of sovereign land, and states that they were approved by the State Lands Commission. Just like in Newport Bay, the State Lands Commission does not have review or approval authority over the San Diego Unified Port District's mooring rates and therefore did not approve the Port's mooring rate increases.

Third, the appraisal would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the moorings and marinas used in its comparison analysis, including a more detailed explanation of the amenities, services, ownership and maintenance of tackle, and other factors of each comparable, along with the appraiser's analysis of how to reconcile those differences.

Finally, the appraisal would benefit from clearer explanations of how calculations were performed. For example, the appraisal uses an average marina 2 Public Resources Code §§ 6009, subd. (d); 6009. 1.
3 See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. Morse (1947) 31 Cal.2d 254, 257 [holding that local grantee was subject to the same burdens as the state, including the Public Trust Doctrine]. 13-66

Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
April 9, 2024

slip rate of $50.55 for Newport Bay and concludes that a 30% marina -to -slip ratio is appropriate. In both cases the appraisal provides the data the conclusions are based on but does not provide an explicit calculation or analysis for how each conclusion was reached from the data.

To be clear, staff is not suggesting that the appraisal be updated to address our comments, and neither are we mandating that the recommended rates be adopted by the City. Staff's conclusion, based on the City's request to review the appraisal, is that the City can reasonably rely on the appraisal's fair market rates.

The City could also adopt different rates if additional information shows that the recommendations should be modified. Many current mooring permitees contacted staff and made public comments at Commission meetings, expressing serious concerns over the large increase in mooring fees recommended by the appraisal.

Staff supports the City phasing in new, fair market mooring rate increases or otherwise working collaboratively with current mooring permitees to soften the impact of increased rates. Staff also observes a significant disparity between the City's residential pier rates and mooring rates. In addition to reassessing mooring rates, staff believes it is an opportune time for the City to also reassess its residential pier rates to ensure these rates reflect fair market value consistent with the City's granting statutes and fiduciary duties.

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

Sincerely,

REID BOGGIANO
Granted Lands Program Manager
cc: Sheri Pemberton, Chief of External Affairs
Ben Johnson, Staff Attorney
Chaun Wong, Staff Appraiser
13-67

Attachment J
Comments Received from the Public
13-68

From: Michael Lawler
Sent: January 22, 2024 5:06 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Lease Rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Hon. Mayor and City Council,
I live on Balboa Island and I'm a permittee for Mooring D-9 (50ft.) for my 47 ft. sailboat I have some serious concerns about the proposed (HUGE!) increases in the offshore mooring rental rates that are being considered by the Harbor Commission. Here are a few of my thoughts.

The appraisal by James Netzer of Netzer & Associates is flawed in three main ways:

1. To determine the value of a mooring, he first uses the values of "Upland Property," meaning the bayfront homes nearest the moorings. Please see

Tidelands Market Rent Analysis, he writes: "The first step of this methodology is to determine the 'market value' of the underlying land via the Sales Comparison Approach .... In the case of the offshore moorings the "land" is defined as the tidelands that support the mooring(s). This methodology is based on the premise that the highest and best use of the submerged land is to be used in conjunction with the upland property.

Since there is no active real estate market for the sale of submerged tidelands, the Market Value of the State-owned tidelands that are administered by the City of Newport Beach, is based on analysis of comparable upland sales ... The offshore moorings and associated permits are more analogous to a residential pier permit as opposed [to] a commercial pier permit. Given these considerations only residential land sales are included in the analysis ... After identifying a number of potential sales, I selected the sales that had the most similar characteristics to estimate the benchmark uplands value of the 'typical' bay front lot." He goes on in his appraisal to come up with a sales price per front foot for seven bayfront homes as a "benchmark" for determining the fair market value of a nearby offshore mooring. He then comes up with a complicated formula for a discount 0.3935 for "lack of joinder," meaning the nearby mooring is not somehow attached to the bayfront home. He then extrapolates from these faulty assumptions that the the fair market rent for an offshore mooring should be $54 per foot per month. This might make some sense if the mooring permittee was the property owner of the nearby bayfront home, but that is almost always not the case.
13-69

My comment/opinion: This is absolute nonsense! Comparing the value of a somewhat tenuous leasehold interest in an offshore mooring to the value of owning a nearby bayfront home, then giving a 0.3935 discount for "lack of joinder" because the mooring is not attached to the bayfront home? That's absurd! The profound unreasonableness of his methodology, assumptions, and analysis draws into doubt his credibility for the rest of his appraisal report.

2. His Comparable Rental Analysis is also flawed (Pages 27 through

33.) He "placed most emphasis" on the rates that the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club charge their members for subleasing the moorings in front of those two clubs. But those members have (a) parking, restrooms, dining, storage and other facilities for their members; (b) a yacht club owned and staff -operated and maintained shore boat for the boat owners to get out to their subleased moorings, (c) the yacht club pays to have the bi-annual inspections and the maintenance and repair on the mooring tackle (which usually runs about $2,000 every two years);(d) the yacht clubs have dinghy docks for their members' use with much longer or no time limits. Based on his faulty assumptions, he concludes the current fair market rent for offshore moorings is $16 to $18 per foot per month, when the current rate is actually only $3.34. He is suggesting an outrageous increase of about five times the current rental rate!

3. His Ratio Analysis is also flawed. This is where Mr. Netzer compared the fair market rent for moorings to slip rentals in Newport Harbor. He states in his appraisal that renting a slip is an option for mooring permittees. It is not for most of us. Slip rentals are too highly priced and many mooring permittees are working class or retirees who cannot afford slip rental rates, nor will they be able to afford the huge increase (5x) for their mooring rates that is proposed. He cites, but does not rely on, the reasonable rates charged by the City of Monterey for similar moorings where the permittee pays the maintenance and repairs on the mooring (as we do in Newport Harbor)- $11 O/month, regardless of the length of the boat (see Page 24 of the Appraisal.) Mr. Netzer gives a ratio of 30%, meaning if a 40 ft. slip costs $1,500/month, then a 40 ft mooring should be 30% of that amount, or $450/month. I suggest the ratio should be much less, more like 10%. With a slip, the boat owner has parking, easy access, electrical power to keep the batteries charged, water to hose the boat down after use, restrooms and trash cans. A mooring permittee has none of those amenities, and must purchase from the former permittee (a) the right to lease the mooring space from the City and (b) the mooring can, chain and ground tackle (the going rate is about $1,000 per foot), and then he must pay for the bi-annual inspections, maintenance and repairs to the mooring can and tackle (about $2,000 every two years.)
13-70

If you want to look at what others are doing, I suggest the City of Monterey at the monthly rate of $110 (regardless of the size of the boat) or at San Mateo County's Pillar Point mooring field where the rates are $2.03 per foot per month ($101.50 for a 50 ft. boat.)
The Beacon Bay Bill is often cited for the City's authority (some say mandate) to charge fair market rent. Upon a close reading of the Beacon Bay Bill you will find that it specifically says it applies only to the lots in Beacon Bay. So I question any "authority" or "mandate" to charge "fair market rent" if it is based on the Beacon Bay Bill. However the City could take into consideration the Beacon Bay property leases for ihose homes in determining what to charge the permittees for the mooring field, and maybe that is a good idea. The City charges 2.5% of the appraised value for an annual rent for the land leased to the lessees (homeowners) in Beacon Bay. For most moorings in Newport Harbor, the going rate to sell a permit is about $1,000/ft. Multiplied by 2.5% (same percentage rate as the homes in Beacon Bay), by analogy, that means the City should charge a 50 ft. mooring permittee $1,250 per year (50 ft. x $1,000/ft x 2.5%). This comes to $104/month. I currently pay $167/month for my 50 ft. mooring. This "comp" or benchmark would suggest the City is already overcharging mooring permittees by 60%.

The best comp for the "fair market rate" in, say, Mooring Field A is what the permittees are paying in Mooring Field B or any other mooring field within Newport Harbor. But the rates are set by the City and are the same for each mooring field throughout the harbor, so this is not very helpful, other than as an argument to keep the rates unchanged.

The mooring rates were reset by the City Council just a few years ago, with with a significant increase then and with an automatic Cost Of Living increase. The rates were studied, much debated, the increases were made, and each year since then they have been adjusted with the COL index -- so the Council need not revisit the issue now. Commissioner Ira Beers says the Harbor Commission has been charged or tasked by the City Council to study the mooring lease rates and to make recommendations. But I understand that Mr. Beers went to the Council and practically begged the council to give him and the other Harbor Commissioners this assignment, and some of the council members were rightfully concerned that it was unnecessary, since the issue was resolved just a few years ago, with the COL increases, so the issue would not have to examined again for many, many years.

Most of the boat owners cannot afford an such a huge increase, as suggested by the (flawed) appraisal.
13-71

I understand the Newport Mooring Association is obtaining another appraisal. On an issue of this importance, it is always wise to get two appraisals. Perhaps that other one will be more reasonable.

In conclusion, I suggest leaving the rates alone, the way they are now, with the automatic COL increases adjusted annually. Similar to the City's policy on providing affordable housing to a relatively small percentage of the population, the City should pride itself on providing offshore and onshore moorings at the current rates as an affordable alternative to the high price of slips in Newport Harbor, thereby making recreational boating a little more economically feasible and a reality for the 1,1160 mooring permittees.

Thanks,
Michael
Michael R. Lawler, Jr.

Attorney at Law
901 Dover Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 646-7236 Tel.
(949) 287-9774 Cell
ml.traveler(a)_Vahoo.com
Privileged and Confidential Communication
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (118 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version. 13-72

From: Drew Lawler
Sent: January 22, 2024 5:17 PM
To: Michael Lawler
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: Re: Mooring Lease Rates
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Wondering if we should hint/quietly let
It be known that if the council goes through with this we will organize a recall election against all council members who vote in favor of an increase.

Drew Lawler
Land Line: 949-631-7660
Cell: 949-275-1810
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 22, 2024, at 5:06 PM, Michael Lawler wrote:

To the Hon. Mayor and City Council,
I live on Balboa Island and I'm a permittee for Mooring D-9 (50ft.) for my 47 ft. sailboat I have some serious concerns about the proposed (HUGE!) increases in the offshore
mooring rental rates that are being considered by the Harbor Commission. Here are a few of my thoughts.

The appraisal by James Netzer of Netzer & Associates is flawed in three main ways-

1. To determine the value of a mooring, he first uses the values of "Upland Property," meaning the bayfront homes nearest the moorings. Please see Page 15 through 27 of
the Netzer Appraisal, under the heading of Tidelands Market Rent Analysis, he writes- "The first step of this methodology is to determine the 'market value' of the underlying land via the Sales Comparison Approach .... In the case of the
offshore moorings the "land" is defined as the tidelands that support the mooring(s). This methodology is based on the premise that the highest and best use of the submerged land is to be used in conjunction with the upland property. Since 13-73

there is no active real estate market for the sale of
submerged tidelands, the Market Value of the State-owned tidelands that are administered by the City of Newport
Beach, is based on analysis of comparable upland
sales ... The offshore moorings and associated permits are more analogous to a residential pier permit as opposed [to] a commercial pier permit. Given these considerations only residential land sales are included in the analysis ... After identifying a number of potential sales, I selected the sales that had the most similar characteristics to estimate the benchmark uplands value of the 'typical' bay front lot." He goes on in his appraisal to come up with a sales price per front foot for seven bayfront homes as a "benchmark" for determining the fair market value of a nearby offshore
mooring. He then comes up with a complicated formula for a discount 0.3935 for "lack of joinder," meaning the nearby mooring is not somehow attached to the bayfront home. He then extrapolates from these faulty assumptions that the the fair market rent for an offshore mooring should be $54 per foot per month. This might make some sense if the mooring permittee was the property owner of the nearby bayfront home, but that is almost always not the case.

My comment/opinion: This is absolute nonsense! Comparing the value of a somewhat tenuous leasehold interest in an offshore mooring to the value of owning a nearby bayfront home, then giving a 0.3935 discount for "lack of joinder" because the mooring is not attached to the bayfront home? That's absurd! The profound unreasonableness of his
methodology, assumptions, and analysis draws into doubt his credibility for the rest of his appraisal report.

2. His Comparable Rental Analysis is also flawed (Pages 27 through 33.) He "placed most emphasis" on the rates that the Newport Harbor Yacht Club and the Balboa Yacht Club charge their members for subleasing the moorings in front of those two clubs. But those members have (a) parking,
restrooms, dining, storage and other facilities for their members-, (b) a yacht club owned and staff -operated and maintained shore boat for the boat owners to get out to their subleased moorings, (c) the yacht club pays to have the bi- annual inspections and the maintenance and repair on the mooring tackle (which usually runs about $2,000 every two years);(d) the yacht clubs have dinghy docks for their
members' use with much longer or no time limits. Based on his faulty assumptions, he concludes the current fair market rent for offshore moorings is $16 to $18 per foot per month, 13-74

when the current rate is actually only $3.34. He is suggesting an outrageous increase of about five times the current rental rate!

3. His Ratio Analysis is also flawed. This is where Mr.

Netzer compared the fair market rent for moorings to slip rentals in Newport Harbor. He states in his appraisal that renting a slip is an option for mooring permittees. It is not for most of us. Slip rentals are too highly priced and many mooring permittees are working class or retirees who cannot afford slip rental rates, nor will they be able to afford the huge increase (5x) for their mooring rates that is proposed.

He cites, but does not rely on, the reasonable rates charged by the City of Monterey for similar moorings where the
permittee pays the maintenance and repairs on the mooring (as we do in Newport Harbor): $11 O/month, regardless of the length of the boat (see Page 24 of the Appraisal.) Mr. Netzer gives a ratio of 30%, meaning if a 40 ft. slip costs
$1,500/month, then a 40 ft mooring should be 30% of that amount, or $450/month. I suggest the ratio should be much less, more like 10%. With a slip, the boat owner has parking, easy access, electrical power to keep the batteries charged, water to hose the boat down after use, restrooms and trash cans. A mooring permittee has none of those amenities, and must purchase from the former permittee (a) the right to lease the mooring space from the City and (b) the mooring can, chain and ground tackle (the going rate is about $1,000 per foot), and then he must pay for the bi-annual inspections, maintenance and repairs to the mooring can and tackle
(about $2,000 every two years.)
If you want to look at what others are doing, I suggest the City of Monterey at the monthly rate of $110 (regardless of the size of the boat) or at San Mateo County's Pillar Point mooring field where the rates are $2.03 per foot per month ($101.50 for a 50 ft. boat.)
The Beacon Bay Bill is often cited for the City's authority (some say mandate) to charge fair market rent. Upon a close reading of the Beacon Bay Bill you will find that it specifically says it applies only to the lots in Beacon Bay. So I question any "authority" or "mandate" to charge "fair market rent" if it is based on the Beacon Bay Bill. However, the City could take into consideration the Beacon Bay property leases for those homes in determining what to charge the permittees for the mooring field, and maybe that is a good idea. The 13-75

City charges 2.5% of the appraised value for an annual rent for the land leased to the lessees (homeowners) in Beacon Bay. For most moorings in Newport Harbor, the going rate to sell a permit is about $1,000/ft. Multiplied by 2.5% (same percentage rate as the homes in Beacon Bay), by analogy, that means the City should charge a 50 ft. mooring permittee $1,250 per year (50 ft. x $1,000/ft x 2.5%). This comes to $104/month. I currently pay $167/month for my 50 ft.
mooring. This "comp" or benchmark would suggest the City is already overcharging mooring permittees by 60%.

The best comp for the "fair market rate" in, say, Mooring Field A is what the permittees are paying in Mooring Field B or any other mooring field within Newport Harbor. But the rates are set by the City and are the same for each mooring field throughout the harbor, so this is not very helpful, other than as an argument to keep the rates unchanged.

The mooring rates were reset by the City Council just a few years ago, with with a significant increase then and with an automatic Cost Of Living increase. The rates were studied, much debated, the increases were made, and each year
since then they have been adjusted with the COL index -- so the Council need not revisit the issue now. Commissioner Ira Beers says the Harbor Commission has been charged or tasked by the City Council to study the mooring lease rates and to make recommendations. But I understand that Mr.

Beers went to the Council and practically begged the council to give him and the other Harbor Commissioners this
assignment, and some of the council members were
rightfully concerned that it was unnecessary, since the issue was resolved just a few years ago, with the COL increases, so the issue would not have to examined again for many, many years.

Most of the boat owners cannot afford an such a huge
increase, as suggested by the (flawed) appraisal.

I understand the Newport Mooring Association is obtaining another appraisal. On an issue of this importance, it is always wise to get two appraisals. Perhaps that other one will be more reasonable.

In conclusion, I suggest leaving the rates alone, the way they are now, with the automatic COL increases
adjusted annually. Similar to the City's policy on
13-76

providing affordable housing to a relatively small
percentage of the population, the City should pride itself on providing offshore and onshore moorings at the
current rates as an affordable alternative to the high
price of slips in Newport Harbor, thereby making
recreational boating a little more economically feasible and a reality for the 1,160 mooring permittees.

Thanks,
Michael
Michael R. Lawler, Jr.

Attorney at Law
901 Dover Drive, Suite 110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 646-7236 Tel.
(949) 287-9774 Cell
ml.traveler(cD_yahoo.com
Privileged and Confidential Communication
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or enror- free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard -copy version.
13-77

From: Doug Wetton
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Dept - City Council; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council,
I'm urging you to keep mooring fees reasonable. This is the last reasonably priced docking option in Newport Beach. This will drive families away from being able to afford boating in Newport Beach. I bought my mooring less than a year ago because I couldn't afford the docking space anywhere in the harbor.

This increase seems onerous especially when compared to the private piers with similar Tideland permits that remain unaffected. Many of us feel that this is unfair targeting and discrimination of our rights as mooring owners.

I understand the need for a modest increase but the rates as published below are egregious.

A
0 Boat Ler4o
Private Mooring
ExNfing
Annual PeFMII 'Fee
JApproximale)
35ft
$1,403
40ft
$1,603
45ft
$1,804
50ft
$2,004
60ft
$2,405
70ft
$2,806
Respectfully,
Doug Wetton
n
1)
E
PFiV&te Plierl5lip
Private MOOFiflE
PriVaTOMOOTiFig N&PUM44
Exialing Ratc
proposad
Prop"04 I`Gr referonciff
An nu at Pe FM I L Fee
Annual
Percentage
[Appfoxitnate�
Flmm it lee
Increase
$309
$4,292
206% RP1171M41
$317
$5,770
260'D/o pnx,�Gioi
$311
$6 p 642
268% Rpnaiwi
$450
$85724
335%RP1172-0743t
$534
$12,211
5 0 9 1/o Ar'11403281
$617
$14,935
432% ppi7nimi
This cotum" derived
trom exhibit D on the
H.C. Agen-da V10124
13-78

L -1 g Wetton

Q PROPERTIES
Doug Wetton Properties
PC Box 5647 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662
o 949.759.0220 ex 102 1 f 949.759.0240 1 c 949.500.4760 DRE: 01009432
13-79

From: Jared Perrin
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content I am upset by the proposed increases to mooring rates in Newport Harbor. The proposed increase is outrageously high, and unfair to permittees. Please do not allow this to move forward.

Best,
Jared Perrin
13-80

From: kirk shafonsky
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I just received word that the city has proposed a 509% annual increase in the mooring fees.

My mooring is A84
I can not understand how Newport thinks that is a fair increase. Its one thing to have a small yearly increase but to hit us up with this increase is totally unfair.

Put yourself in our shoes. How would you feel if your mortgage or car payment went up 509%
I have also been told that the slip rates are staying the same. I am not trying to try to push for others to get a crazy increase but i just point out how unfair this proposal is! The NMA has repeatedly pointed out that mooring holders already pay 5 to 10 times more than all other tideland users including homeowners with docks and major corporations who operate marinas. We are currently paying far, far more on a square foot basis for use of the same tidelands. This new report exaggerates this discrepancy multiple times over and flies in the face of fairness and blatantly discriminates against mooring holders.

I politely ask you to reconsider this crazy increase.

Thank you,
Kirk Shafonsky
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
13-81

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning. I would like to express my opposition to the staggering rate increase proposal, on the harbor moorings.

Thank you,
Steven D. Kruse
221 E. Bay Front
Newport Beach, CA 92662
13-82

From: Jake Wirthlin
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:18 AM
To: Scully, Steve; Dept - City Council; O'Neill, William Subject: February 1 meeting on mooring fee increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Hello,
I am an out of state mooring owner and have been informed of the potential rate increase for my mooring and all offshore moorings. I have some serious financial concerns and would like to voice them. If the information is true about this increase it is going to be putting a very substantial burden on me and the people that live on their moorings. You see as much as I would like to be able to live in Newport the numbers do not make sense in my current situation, but I am very aware of my mooring neighbors financial situation and how that will impact their lives.

I am not sure how to be a voice of my concerns with the "talk of the town" about what is about to happen at this meeting. I would like this to be my voice as we are already paying fees equal to the current appraisal. I am certain there are others out there that would be suspect of anything currently proposing an appraisal more than what we are all currently paying.

That being said it is pretty clear I oppose any increase in rates as I would like to enjoy my mooring for a very long time.

Thank you for listening,
Jake Wirthlin
H-75
13-83

From: Eric Mears
Sent: January 23, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don't increase the mooring fees. Boating is a large part of our family life, and I would like to keep it that way.

Thanks,
Eric
13-84

From: James Reno
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don't raise the mooring fees so much. Especially the offshore moorings.

Sent from my Whone
13-85

From: PAUL BAILEY
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:09 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Moorings vs Piers
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Lets be equal and fair across the board to everyone (excluding Co./Inc.) that hold permits for public land !
For moorings out in the water, with no amenity's to pay more money then, a prier with a lot of amenity's is going to make city look prejudice.

When the over all people (non -boaters) here of this the city council is going to look pretty bad.

Thanks
Paul Bailey
13-86

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:21 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Potential Increase in Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I understand that the City is considering increasing the monthly fees for mooring permit holders here in our harbor.

From the research that I have done, mooring holders in Newport already pay 5 to 10 times more than all other tideland users including homeowners with docks and major corporations who operate marinas.

These moorings are the last affordable bay access for the general public and we would appreciate your help in keeping things the same. I grew up fishing in and outside of the harbor and I want to give my three boys the opportunity to do the same. That is why I paid a large dollar amount for the mooring that we currently occupy.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can work with the current mooring permit holders to create an amicable resolution.

Artie Dorr
Cell: (949) 500-9832
Office: (949) 673-7368
Fax. (949) 566-9335
artie(@Robalboa.com
www.aobalboa.com
Balboa Realt
813 East Balboa Blvd.

Newport Beach, CA 92661
DRE #01899740
D
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this 13-87

transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. 13-88

From: charlie Levy
Sent: January 23, 2024 11:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: City council meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear sirs, I worked my whole life and paid off my boat. I have a mooring in Newport Harbor because that was the only place I could afford to keep my boat now that I am retired. If the mooring fees go up as much as you are planning I will not be able to keep my boat any more. The whole reason the mooring fields were created was to keep boating affordable to the average Californian. Your fee increase would make boating only available to the elite! I hope that is not your goal, please keep boating affordable to us average Americans. Thank you, Charles Levy, Mooring permit holder B-192.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPad
13-89

From: Winner1436
Sent: January 23, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: increase in mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
i am told there is a planned increase in mooring fees to be presented to the council on Feb 1. The increases that are planned are unbelievable. I have held my mooring since 1980 and have never heard of anything like this. I have seen increases due to inflation but increasing fees by 300% or higher is wrong. And there is no plan to increase the current much lower fee for private pier people who own a boat dock - this is not fare. Please have this considered fairly. Many of us mooring holders will have to get rid of our moorings with this type of a fee.
thank you
Buzz Lowry
716 w oceanfront
13-90

From: kartbin
Sent: January 23, 2024 12:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed annual fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content hLsafe.

Hello,
Can you please explain how it makes sense that mooring permitees will be charged so much more than pier owners?
Please use rational sensibility and do not increase the fees. They are already more than they should be for a mooring that is maintained by the permittee and nothing is provided by the city.

Thank you,
Linda Miller
13-91

1 -.08 A IN Ii i IR Ail 69% a
sense of unfair targeting and
to the proposed fee increase,
ig their situation to private piers
is that remain unaffected.
351t
$1.403
S30D
$4,292
2064%
40h
$1,603
$327
$5.770
2609�
45fi
$1,804
"11
SGPU2
2"4 011IRLAM3
50ft
$2,(104
U50
$4.724
1115% 4PIT'UW1
60ft
$2,405
$534
$12.212
509% LP13MINI
7Uft
$2.806
$617
$14,BM
432% P-quawn
D-A-
4-1.3;MN
0 13-92

13-93

From: Brian Ouzounian
Sent: January 23, 2024 1:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooringfees, again?
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My mooring is a 171. It has been in my possession for about 50 years. The staff proposal for moving fee increases is totally absurd and should be an embarrassment to the City Council and Harbor commission.

The state lands commission, as I have always understood, regulates rates up and down the state, so that they are not excessive or undervalued. It performs periodic rate surveys. It does not allow for price hikes because one area may feel special related to land values as opposed to others, which may be lesser land values. How in the world can you be allowed to be so " arrogant" in this proposal. You definitely discriminate above and beyond other Harbor's saying that we can justify this because we are special.

That is not allowed to my understanding and the city should be seriously disciplined. At the least proposing something like this should be an embarrassment. What is happening to our city when measures like this surface?
State lands commission benchmark study show's legitimate rates. As I have researched this benchmark study data for many years now, our current rates are excessive and at least my mooring should be 10% of what is currently being charged, based upon their findings.

Therefore I urge you to shut this down right now, and evaluate how you can reduce the morning rates, at that time our City will be special.

Best regards,
Brian Ouzounian
Sent from my iPad
13-94

From: KB
Sent: January 23, 2024 2:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please reconsider. Pounding the poor is never the answer. 80% of moored boats belong to the poor who can't afford a dock. Most of the rich will never moor their boats. Dealings with no electrical, birds, seals, boarding/unboarding, washing and waxing are a pain in the butt on a mooring. 80% of the moored boats will leave since the poor can't afford it. So, I believe the harbor will be abandoned and will look like a ghost harbor. The consequence of fee increase will have detrimental effects especially on the poor.

Thank you Sent from my Whone
13-95

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 23, 2024 2:48 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring number H-310
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content It is with great disappointment that I find that the city is planning to raise mooring fees an unprecedented 250% of my current fee. It seems not that long ago mooring holders fought that same battle and came to an agreement that the current fee schedule was fair and equitable. A cost of living increase makes more sense but 250% increase for my 45 foot mooring is beyond understanding. If I was in a residential rental and you raised my rent 250% we would be in court. I know the rental increase is based on an appraisal by what I understand to be a real estate appraisal group who has no background in harbor leases. I wonder if it was taken into account that we mooring lessees pay for all our own tackle and there is no city service to get us to and from our moorings. These issues may have been considered but we still are dealing with a huge increase for a population that are not well heeled bayfront owners for whom a significant bump in rent would mean very little. We are, for the most part, average citizens willing to put up with the inconvenience of a mooring to be able to enjoy a boating experience. I don't doubt some will need to sell their moorings as their boating experience just became way more costly.

I don't doubt that the appraisal report is based on the highest possible comparatives and that the mooring fees are low hanging fruit for those who are trying to find more tax dollars to run the government. Please lower the percentage of increase, so we don't have to consider leaving our boating experience behind us, as a fond memory. Nigel Bailey 949-500-3250 [email protected] 13-96

From: Jim Palmer
Sent: January 23, 2024 3:26 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission
Subject: Opposition to the proposed offshore mooring rate increase [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hon. Mayor O'Neill
Fellow Council Members
Harbor Commission Chair Scully
Fellow Harbor Commissioners
Harbormaster Blank
This letter is to express my opposition to the Harbor Commission's proposed offshore mooring rate increase because:
1) The proposed rates violate NBMC Section 17.60-040 (113)(2)(h) (Pg 6/18)
A) Mooring Permittee shall pay fair market value rent, as established by resolution of the City Council, on a rent schedule established by the Harbormaster, which shall be similar to the schedule used to collect rent from other tidelands users in Newport Harbor.

B) The City's schedule used to collect rents for mooring permits over tidelands is already about 300% higher than the schedule used for pier permits over tidelands. The proposal will increase rates to about 1000% higher or more (Ref: Resolution 2015-10).
2) The Netzer Appraisal 12/23/2023 assumptions and conclusions are fundamentally flawed
A) Offshore moorings are incorrectly assumed to be 'highest use' valuation B) Public offshore moorings have numerous strict conditions and limitations on use including no subletting, conforming vessel requirements, scheduled maintenance and more
C) Unlike moorings controlled by private yacht clubs within Newport Harbor, public offshore moorings are equivalent of 'triple net' with permit holder responsible for all mooring costs and have no shore boat service, parking, dinghy storage, dock carts or other dedicated onshore amenities, facilities or services
D) The Appraisal inappropriately relies on unapproved rates proposed by a 3rd party mooring services vendor in San Diego
E) The San Diego mooring services vendor is responsible for all associated mooring costs with the vendor providing mooring equipment, mooring 13-97

maintenance, administration, shore -side dinghy storage and vehicle parking.

The mooring vendor in turn pays a share of gross rental revenues, concessions and services markups to the San Diego Port Authority. New terms of the mooring vendor -Port Authority agreement are underway but not finalized.

E) Mooring permits issued by the City of Avalon most closely resemble those issued by Newport Beach, yet those comps are not included in the Appraisal 3) This should be a non -issue and with no changes to the current annual CPI adjustments
A) Even the Netzer Appraisal states: The [transfer tables] tables are included to illustrate the market has been relatively efficient and stable throughout the harbor and among the various mooring fields and mooring lengths. P 13 B) Approximately 100 (13%) of public offshore moorings are vacant at any given time and available for the City to rent and should be an 2024 Harbor Commission Objective
Q Mooring fees should continue with annual CPI adjustments at least until the City learns more about FMV/supply/clemand from the City's a new program for 16 moorings starting on March 1, 2024
D) Available records show between July 2017 to October 2023, 255 of the 771 public offshore moorings were transferred to non -family members (33% and an average of avg 36 per year)
Please reject the Harbor Commission's proposed rate increase and instead continue with the current CPI adjustment schedule.

Sincerely,
Jim Palmer
Mooring Permit D10
901 Dover Dr #101
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-433-6512
[email protected]
13-98

From: Andy SWANSON
Sent: January 23, 2024 4:25 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Appraisal of rates for permitted moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
This email is regarding the new mooring permit fee appraisal. My name is Andy Swanson and I became a mooring permittee a little over 2 years ago. Growing up is Southern California I spent a lot of time in Newport Beach. It has always been my dream to one day have my own sailboat and keep it in Newport Harbor. After working hard, raising our 4 daughters and climbing the career ladder, my wife and I felt we were finally in a position to make our dreams a reality. Like you, I am a government employee with a middle class salary. After becoming empty nesters we decided to refinance our home to purchase our sailboat and a mooring permit. We put a lot of thought and planning into making this decision. We felt comfortable with the cost of an annual parking permit, biannual mooring tackle maintenance / inspection and the monthly mooring fee. As well as the regular boat maintenance cost and dinghy storage. We also understand that costs go up over time. All that being said if the monthly rate of our mooring were to be raised by such a drastic amount it would create a hardship for us. Potentially crushing our dreams of spending time with and teaching our children and grandchildren the joys of sailing. This will not just effect us but also future generations of boaters. I recently received an email from the harbor department that ended with this quote. "Thanks for your contributions to maintaining Newport Harbor as a clean, safe and enjoyable public resource for the entire community to enjoy". I feel that by raising mooring permit fees to the level that they are unafforclable for the average person would contradict this quote by making Newport Harbor only enjoyable by the wealthy and not the entire community. If my wife and I would have known we could possibly be paying over 4.5 times what the current mooring rates are we would have made a different decision. In a State that is becoming more and more unafforclable, I would ask that you not do the same with the State Tidelands. Thank you! Best regards,
The Swanson Family
13-99

From: Ruben Smulovitz
Sent: January 23, 2024 6:04 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee's-
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

In regards to mooring rate increase; this topic needs to be discussed, before any actions implemented. We have paid a premium to enjoy the Hassles associated with being a Mooring Permitee. We are the real Stewards of the Harbor. We have the best intentions and interest in preserving the Harbors conditions and beauty. We are required to maintain the tackle, even if we have no vessel on our mooring, so that the Harbor Department can rent our mooring to visitors. There is so much here that needs to be resolved before any actions can be taken. We will see you at the Meeting, and I hope that you bring your reasoning mind with you.
:011 0=0
RS Builders
Ruben Smulovitz
(714) 308-0844
13-100

From: Jerry kelleher
Sent: January 23, 2024 6:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fee increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please approve a fair increase. The proposed numbers are punitive and unfair. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Gerald Kelleher
Sent from my Whone
13-101

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 24, 2024 5:49 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please be reasonable in raising the mooring fees. I and my family have had the same onshore mooring since they were installed. I understand that the fees need to be raised but please consider those of us that won't be able to afford a huge raise in fees. Thank -you , Kathy White S-115.

Sent from my iPhone
13-102

From: Camille Rizko
Sent: January 24, 2024 10:17 AM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council Subject: increase of mooring fee.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Dear sirs or Madams,
We are shocked to hear about the proposed mooring fee increases. We just purchased our mooring (1-1211) and paying an already high fee compared to other areas. 13-103

From: Graham Proctor
Sent: January 24, 2024 10:55 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increases
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council Members,
My wife and I purchased a Lease agreement for mooring Al 41 in JuLy Last year and are shocked that our budgeted cost of mooring in Newport Beach is going to be drasticatty increased.

We invested $48 000 in getting access to Lease from the previous Lease holder and cannot believe that even more money is planned to be extracted from us within six months of takingoverthis lease.

We understand that costs may need to be covered but proposed increases seem excessive. Please honor our original agreement and keep the fees reasonable.

Talking to other boat owners in Newport, it appears that other types of permit holders are not being targeted for increases, so why are offshore moorings being singled out for increases? I will be attending the meeting on Feb 'I't and hope that you decide to keep boat ownership in Newport Beach affordable for Orange County residents and equitable for all boat docking and mooring agreements.

Regards,
Graham Proctor
(949) 447-0591
13-104

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ludgate
25, 2024 7:43 AM
Flo rAFIj rAFIj iggiggij i-A [a [a
& . -, L. F, a W, L Z I a I i i I i A i " a
00041D�041D�Discriminating against mooring permittees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please explain to me how this is not discriminating in nature and action ? 8 C
0 :�.-a!!Lt:-
Private Mooring
NiVALD P14EFISUp
PIOV.AC42 MC�011flX
E Ki sting
FxI i6n C Rava
Pira9csed
AnnL1APtFMi1Fvdi
Annua(PelirkillFwo
Amnual
JApprazIrimaiml
JAPP�Oqdvnhlej
Perm-, 0,--
35ft
$1,403
$309
$4,292
40ft
$1,603
$317
$5,770
45ft
$1.604
$311
$6,642
50ft
$2,004
$450
$8,724
60ft
$2,.405
$534
$12,211
70ft
$2.806
$617
$14,935
ThL!s cotunrin deireved
tFomexNbn0ont14@
RC. "a VIW4
A response would be appreciated thank you
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
e
FriY41IL-MOOT'Ing PP"Petm�Vv
Fraposivid foirfetepeme
Fivccentogc
Itirr0"i,
206% Rpamw
260% RmGmsoi
2681/o kpitwui
335% ilpimw)
509% iwpmo3zai
4,32%;tFi74oio!,t
13-105

From: brooke primrose
Sent: January 25, 2024 12:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My partner and I are a mooring holder and are concerned about the mooring fees annual increase. We do not believe that there should be an increase as we do not have any easy access to water or electricity. The price for a private pier annual rate is well below of what a mooring rate is and they have easy access to water/electricity. We are very displeased with the thought of having the annual fee increase by 268% for a 45 foot mooring.

Thank you for your time.
13-106

From: June Theriot
Sent: January 25, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council Subject: Vote "NO" on proposed increase of Mooring Fees [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager, and Harbor Commission Members, I urge you to vote 'NO' on the proposed increase of shore mooring fees.

My grandfather installed our shore mooring in the 1930's - 1940's. He installed the weight, can, lines, shackles, and post with permission, but no help from the city and Harbor Department. We have maintained the mooring throughout the years at no cost to the city or The Harbor Department.

We have seen many changes over years: The fees have increased and regulations have changed on this property that we own. The city can rent out our mooring line to any boater and keep the fees that are charged without compensation to us who own the property.

My grandchildren are the 5th generation to use the shore mooring. They have learned to boat safely in the harbor by sailing, rowing, and motor. We will be priced out of these special memories if the fees are increased beyond our means.

Please review the outrageous shore mooring fee increase and REJECT this proposal.

Respectfully,
June Theriot
Virus-free. www.avq.com
13-107

From: Ted Rieck
Sent: January 28, 2024 10:03 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

There are no facilities or amenities for the mooring holders. There's no parking, there's no bathrooms there's no rack for you to put a dinghy, so there's no justification for the price increase.

Ted Rieck
13-108

From: Randy Beck
Sent: January 29, 2024 8:08 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello all, I appose a rate increase the owners already take care of maintenance . Thank you, Randy 13-109

From: bgriffith sclfinance.com
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:17 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Stapleton, Joe; Grant, Robyn; [email protected] Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Mooring Fee Discrepancies in Newport Beach [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear Newport City Council,
We trust this message finds you well. It has come the attention that a significant number of residents in Newport Beach are expressing deep dissatisfaction with the recent proposed mooring fee increase. We believe it is important for the City Council to be aware of the concerns raised by the community.

Here are some key points for your consideration:

Disparity in Fees:

Pier Dock Owners currently pay $400 annually.

Mooring Holders, on the other hand, are charged $1603 for a 40ft mooring.

The substantial difference in fees has raised questions within the community.

Maintenance Costs -
Maintaining a mooring costs Mooring Holders over $2000 annually.

It is important to understand the financial burden placed on Mooring Holders for upkeep.

Perceived Discrimination:

Some residents have expressed concerns that the fee structure implies discrimination.

We believe it is essential to address these perceptions to maintain trust and transparency.

In light of the above, we kindly request the presence of a few City Council members at an upcoming meeting to discuss these matters in detail. Your participation would contribute to a constructive dialogue and help address the concerns of Newport Beach residents.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a positive resolution that takes into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. 13-110

What You Can Do To Support 1100 Mooring Holders Asset
You can attend CIty Harbor Commisslon or Write to City Council YOUr note ShiaUld include - Mooring Holders Discrimination -Netzer questionable & Unrekable Methods of appraisal- Beacon Bay Bill where Newport City Is to provide affordable boating
13-111

From: SARA FRANKE
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:19 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Discriminatory Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello, please vote AGAINST the proposed discriminatory, astronomical increase in mooring fees. Waterfront homes with docks and/or other water storage areas in front of their homes for boats, kayaks, etc., are not incurring such a fee increase for their use of far greater water space, which is solely dedicated to their own private use. You allow open moorings to be occupied by visiting boats but keep the money you make, rather than crediting mooring holders who incur all the maintenance costs. Yet waterfront homeowners are treated differently and far better, by not being subject to this huge fee increase and not having to share their dock or water space with anyone else, Until all water space use and fees can be addressed fairly and consistently among all users of the water space, I urge you to please reject the proposed fee increase that would be borne only by mooring holders and not waterfront homeowners.

Thank you.

Sara Franke, Mooring D-047
13-112

From: Jay Renkowitz
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:27 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Raising mooring fees is in appropriate -The moorings are hard to access and a part of the community which is unique and aesthetically pleasing thus benefits all in the community from artists to tourists who enjoy the sights of our unique community.Please leave the fees as they currently exist 13-113

From: Ron Berg Dba berg
Sent: January 29, 2024 3:56 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring d 11'
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.
you should not increase fees more than 2% per year
13-114

From: Chuck Lewis
Sent: January 29, 2024 4:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Opposition to Dramatic Mooring Fee Increase
JEXTERINAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear NB City Council,
I'm writing today to express my concerns and disbelief over the proposed dramatic increases to fees for only off -shore moorings.

While I recognize that increasing mooring fees is a necessary and natural part of maintaining services (your harbor department is terrific), I am greatly struggling with why one group is being targeted to carry the burden and why such a huge increase in one year?? I have been a proud mooring leaseholder in Newport Harbor for 14 years now. Having a boat on a mooring comes with many challenges, which I'm sure you are well aware of: Sea lions, birds, other boats hitting us, no power, no water, etc, etc. The tradeoff has been reasonable lease rates.

As you consider raising rates, I would expect you to do so fairly across the board for all leaseholders, not just off -shore moorings, and encourage you to develop a phased -in approach.

Respectfully,
Chuck
Chuck Lewis
360 E. Ist Street. #198
Tustin, CA 92780
714-318-3137 cell
[email protected]
13-115

From: Les Barkley
Sent: January 29, 2024 4:33 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed increase in mooring fees
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear Council Members -
I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed increase in mooring fees. Frankly, I do not understand the rationale for a proposed 268% increase in annual fees for my 45' mooring (B-191). In addition to the existing annual fee of approx. $1900, 1 pay annual "property taxes" of $1700 to the County, bi-annual mandatory mooring inspection and adjustment fees, boat insurance, maintenance and operating costs. Raising my annual city fee to $6600 would equate to annual fee (aka tax) of over 5% of the value of my 27' boat. Again, this in addition to the $1700 annual tax I pay to the County.

This is an absurd increase that is not justifiable.

Thank you for your consideration
Les Barkley
(949) 274-3800
13-116

From: C K
Sent: January 29, 2024 5:28 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: J12
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 6 Good evening,
This is unacceptable. How can this be justified?
I disagree with this increase.

Catherine King
VlooringJ12

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This electronic mail transmission and any attachments are confidential, may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
13-117

From: Barbara Lawler
Sent: January 29, 2024 8:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Increase of fees at that proportion: ridiculous! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> Bad management is what this is.... an increase, fine. 500%: ridiculous.. > One appraisal was gotten. All of you, if it were your house, say a remodel, would get three appraisals.

Why not get two more REALISTIC appraisals and compare?
> Regards,
> Barbara Lawler
13-118

From: Phil Domiano
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:03 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Proposed mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content To Whom it May Concern,
Upon receiving the initial notification of such a huge increase in Mooring fees, I was shocked and appalled. Although there is great wealth within the community of Newport Beach, our current economy will, undoubtedly force those who are less fortunate to give up their mooring . To Be honest the whole thing seems quite fishy to me. At a time when California is considering giving illegal aliens, free healthcare, one cannot help think that issues like this are at the root cause of such a ridiculous increase.

Costs of everything are up across-the-board, and the middle class has been hit hard. I understand There may be some type of increase request, but the proposed increase is dumbfounding, and unfortunately, those of us on the outside will never truly know the motive behind it. To me, it seems like some type of land grab .

I am not currently a resident of California, thank God, but those in charge are destroying your state. As a realtor in Nevada I hear it on a daily basis from the the influx of Californians flooding our community.

Your delusional governor can continue to bury his head in the sand and gaslight Those of significant means whose lives are not affected by increases in food, gas, health insurance and pretty much everything else.

But for the rest of us, this is just another reason to vote out you people who sit on your high horses and turn your back on the American people. Please reconsider and make it a reasonable increase.

Regards
Phil
Phil Domiano

REALTOR
S.191268

URBAN NEST REALTY
Direct: 702.845.5679
Office: 702.835.2444
9580 W Sahara Suite 200
Las Vegas NV 89117
www.aitgroupiv.com
13-119

From: Tim Lewis
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:36 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: MOORINGs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Council member
To the point. It looks like someone or group within the City wants to be in the mooring business. Great plans about creating new moorings and bragging about the income from them?
If the increases proposed take place, about 1/3rd of the moorings will go into default. A few things will happen. The City will become the owner of a lot of derelict boats, at great expense to remove them. It will not collect rent. The moorings themselves will have to be serviced by the City. In some cases you could need armed intervention? There are people that are very passionate about the use of those moorings and you could trigger an insurrection of sorts. Lawsuits and a paper nightmare will impact the Harbor operation.

The bottom line is the City doesn't need to own moorings and the current system works just fine. Proper management includes running it like a business. When you fail to respect the customers, your business will fail. What you really need here is a good business manager, to be just that, not a group of commisioners, inline to be on the Council. Take the power away from the Harbor Commision and run the moorings like a business.

Tim Lewis
13-120

From: M Thompson
Sent: January 30, 2024 7:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Hello esteemed city council of Newport Beach!
We grew up in Newport, attended NHHS. We have always agreed since meeting that we wanted to sail boats to interesting places. Because we could afford to keep a boat on a mooring in Newport (that we got a permit for in 1977), we have been able to realize this dream.

This is where we raised our kids, they have benefitted from this environment. We are school teachers. We didn't make much but we made sure we could afford to keep our mooring. 17 boats have passed through our hands, most of them kept here. We bought fixers and worked diligently, made them reliable and used them hard. More than one two year stint to Mexico starting in 1979 on three different boats. We are really into boating.

We find it shocking that the purpose of the moorings is not being respected. They are where people like us can afford to pursue our love of the ocean, on boats. No where else nearby has any sort of affordable boat space. Isn't it discriminatory to up our rates and not every rate for boats stored on the bay?
I think a small raise is ok, maybe double what we pay now. But to be fair, you must raise everyone's costs accordingly. I don't think waterfront home owners will like that. They must be made to pay equally. There is your needed source of more income to support city projects. If brought to par there would be enormous income there that we now miss.

So we ask that you respect the history of the purpose of the mooring fields. Do not raise our fees an astronomical amount that limits access to the public permanently. Do include waterfront property owners in your assessment of potential income and use it.

Respectfully,
Meridee and Paul Thompson
H-812
13-121

From: Phil Rodas
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: shore mooring RATE INCREASE
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear Council members,
I have a shore mooring and know you are discussing rate increases. Bear in mind that moorings contain no utilities like water to rinse and flush engines on boats.They also gave no electricity to charge batteries etc. For that reason I keep a kayak on my shore mooring. Even though the kayak is not long I am charged for the length the mooring is rated for thus I pay almost twice the length of the mooring I use. I am a Newport Beach resident and Mooring permitted. I Love boating and fishing here in Newport Harbor.

Please don't raise the Mooring fees, as this will have a Adverse effect to myself and Many others. The burden will cause me to, if this is your plan, to release my rights as I cannot afford the over 500% or so increase in price up to $300 or or more per month. Remember, even having a 18 ft or less boat, we are Dry Docked on sand more than 50% of the time. Which also causes damage to boat over time. We also have to replace the chain, and fix mooring a couple years as well.

Thanks for your consideration.

Phillip Rodas
714-801-7445
13-122

From: Peter Bergman
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback Subject: Proposed fee changes for shore mornings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council merntbers,
I am a shore mooring holder for 15 years who lives on Balboa Island. Attached to my mooring is my little Lido14 sail boat, "Red Head", which I sail regularly 8 months out of the year. Years ago, it was year-round sailing. In my 70s now, the cold water in setting up and launching the boat is just too much. Which brings me to something I'm not sure you've considered: the great limitations of "wet sailing" that shore moorings present.

Any time I take the boat out, I am standing in knee to waist -deep water for a considerable time, both launching and returning, as I put the sails on and off the boat. Sailing when I'm quite wet is draw -back during many months of the year, but because the lower cost of a shore mooring (that I paid $15,000 to own the rights to) make sailing affordable to me in my old age, I can continue my sailing hobby.

Increasing my mooring fees by 362% would definitely end that life-long hobby. I would have no choice but to give up my mooring .... and of course my Red Head. Please consider the very particular features of a shore mooring. It is NOTHING like a regular mooring, and even less like launching from a dock. You are in effect pricing your elderly citizens out of a cherished pastime. Please be reasonable in your decision making.

Thank you for your time,
Peter Bergman
120 Marine Avenue
Balboa Island
Sent from my iPad
13-123

From: Robert Barnard
Sent: January 30, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I would like to express my concern and opposition to the proposed Mooring rental increase by the Harbor Commission, due to the following but not limited to reasons — The proposed increase is significantly more than any other California city/county run mooring program, as listed in the report.

The mooring rent appraisal report assumes no initial capital outlay.

It estimates what a monthly rent would be, had no upfront capital had been spent to be a mooring permittee. By increasing the monthly rent significantly, you in essence wipe out most if not all value that is held by a Mooring permittee. Maybe that's the intent, but if that is the intent then I ask you to consider how you would feel if a government entity changed the rules which significantly devalued something you held. Imagine the taxes on anything that you pay being increased 3x.

The appraisal report compares prices against yacht club prices. I am not a Yacht club member, I cannot afford, nor do I wish to be a member. I'm just a normal guy who is trying to enjoy boat ownership and not go broke in the process. Part of what appealed to me about the moorings was that I could put up some initial capital, and not have to worry about a Marina continuing to increase rent. It allowed me some stability in my finances, and ability to budget accordingly. Maybe that was a bad assumption, but I'd be willing to bet that most citizens would not expect a 3x increase on fees/taxes from their government. This has introduced significant volatility into the costs associated with that mooring program. Imagine the anxiety that you would feel knowing that the commission just increased fees 3x, and they very well could do it again another few years.

I understand there has been significant inflation in the past few years, and that a fee increase may be warranted, but the fact that the appraisal estimate is so out of bed with the CPI increase, tells you that something is wrong and biased with the appraisal report. I cannot think of any other tax, value, or fee that has increased 3x in 5 years.

If you made it this far, then I thank you for reading my email. In closing I ask you to remember that the moorings were not designed as a method to maximize revenue. They're there so that people can get out on the water and experience the joy of boating without the continuing anxiety of 3x fee increases.

Thank you,
Robert Barnard
13-124

Mooring A41
13-125

From: Matt Clabaugh
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Scully, Steve; [email protected]; Dept - City Council Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Attachments: Mooring Fee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
13-126

From: Matt Clabaugh
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: Scully, Steve; [email protected]; Dept - City Council CC: [email protected]
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Sirs:

I strongly disagree with any action to raise the historically stable mooring fees within the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach. The market is at equilibrium, and there is no reason to drastically change what has been a good public/private partnership for over 75 years.

If the morning fees are drastically raised as seems to be proposed, the nature of the harbor will change for the worse.

Additionally,
I . The appraisal submitted has assumptions and methods that are inaccurate, easily disputable, and subjective. It will certainly be challenged.

2. Said appraisal severely overstates the value of the moorings. It equates a vacant lot on Lido Island to the value of a ball and chain in the water.

3. Unintended consequences will occur after such draconian increases. Major disruption to long time morning lessees, restaurants and services, the boating industry, Newport's reputation, harbor traffic, more.

4. Such action increases the likelihood that moorings will fall under scrutiny from state housing authorities, including but not limited to SB-9, SB 10, AB345, AB491 and others. Do you really want Sacramento to get involved?
I am a graduate of CdM, have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1974, and have run a business in Newport Beach for over 20 years. I urge you to listen to some of us who know this city. The consequences of such a drastic action will be detrimental to the unique qualities of my home town.

Matt Clabaugh
The Valencia Group, Inc.
240 Newport Center Drive, #201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 720-8426 Fax -8427
Cal DRE 01250380
IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, together with any documents, files and/or email messages attached to it, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and restricted from disclosure. If you are not the 13-127

intended recipient, or responsible for delivery to that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. In such case, please delete this message without reading or saving, and notify the sender by reply email. 13-128

From: bgriffith sclfinance.com
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:58 AM
To: Matt Clabaugh; Scully, Steve; [email protected]; Dept - City Council
Subject: RE: Mooring Fee Discussion
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK linksmor attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Another concern is that when the media catches wind of discrimination issues in Newport Beach, it reflects poorly on our beautiful city. We hold ourselves to higher standards, and such incidents tarnish our reputation. The potential fallout from this could have a lasting impact on how our city is perceived.

From: Matt Clabaugh
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:47 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: bgriffith sclfinance.com
Subject: Mooring Fee Discussion
Sirs:

I strongly disagree with any action to raise the historically stable mooring fees within the sphere of influence of the city of Newport Beach. The market is at equilibrium, and there is no reason to drastically change what has been a good public/private partnership for over 75 years.

If the morning fees are drastically raised as seems to be proposed, the nature of the harbor will change for the worse.

Additionally,

1. The appraisal submitted has assumptions and methods that are inaccurate, easily disputable, and subjective. It will certainly be challenged.

2. Said appraisal severely overstates the value of the moorings. It equates a vacant lot on Lido Island to the value of a ball and chain in the water.

3. Unintended consequences will occur after such draconian increases. Major disruption to long time morning lessees, restaurants and services, the boating industry, Newport's reputation, harbor traffic, more.

4. Such action increases the likelihood that moorings will fall under scrutiny from state housing authorities, including but not limited to SB-9, S1310, A13345, AB491 and others. Do you really want Sacramento to get involved?
13-129

I am a graduate of CdM, have been a resident of Newport Beach since 1974, and have run a business in Newport Beach for over 20 years. I urge you to listen to some of us who know this city. The consequences of such a drastic action will be detrimental to the unique qualities of my home town.

Matt Clabaugh
The Valencia Group, Inc.
240 Newport Center Drive, #201
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 720-8426 Fax -8427
Cal DRE 01250380
IMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, together with any documents, files and/or email messages attached to it, is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and restricted from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivery to that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. In such case, please delete this message without reading or saving, and notify the sender by reply email. 13-130

From: kathryn777
Sent: January 30, 2024 12:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Council members,
I have read, and agree, with all the letters who oppose mooring rate increases. I would like to add one other point: it is simply irresponsible.

Had these increases been done in gradual increments there would be time to adjust our budgets and plan accordingly. At the risk of sounding like a child, these increases are just not fair. Imagine any expense that you may have ( car, house, electric bill) being increased suddenly at this high rate and you will have an idea of how we feel.

Please do the responsible thing and oppose these rate hikes.

K. O'Neal
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
13-131

From: Conner Colletto
Sent: January 30, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council Subject: Urgent Appeal: Request to Reconsider Proposed Mooring Rate Increase [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Newport Harbor Commission,
I trust this message finds you well. My name is Conner Colletto (29), and I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed mooring rate increase in Newport Beach. As a resident and passionate member of our maritime community, I would like to bring to your attention a few crucial points that I believe merit reconsideration before implementing the proposed changes.

First and foremost, our city's coastal charm and nautical heritage are integral to its identity and appeal. The accessibility of moorings has played a pivotal role in fostering a sense of community among boaters, residents, and visitors alike. Any significant increase in mooring rates will jeopardize this inclusive atmosphere, potentially dissuading avid boaters and maritime enthusiasts from continuing to invest their time, money and energy in our beautiful harbor.

One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed rate hike is its potential impact on the younger generation's involvement in boating. The current mooring rates already pose a financial challenge for many individuals, particularly younger enthusiasts who are keen to embrace the boating culture. An additional increase could further discourage their participation, hindering the development of a new generation of sailors and maritime stewards. It is crucial for our community's vitality that we encourage, rather than impede, the younger generation's engagement with boating.

Moreover, it's essential to acknowledge the broader economic impact of such a rate hike.

Newport Beach has long been a destination for boaters, attracting tourism revenue and contributing to the local economy. By keeping mooring rates reasonable, we ensure that our city remains an attractive and welcoming destination for sailors and maritime enthusiasts, ultimately supporting local businesses and jobs.

I understand that maintaining and improving the city's infrastructure requires financial resources.

However, I urge the city to explore alternative means of revenue generation or cost-cutting measures before resorting to an increase in mooring rates. Collaborative efforts with stakeholders and the boating community may present innovative solutions that can address the financial needs without placing an undue burden on mooring owners.

Additionally, transparency in the decision -making process is crucial. I request that the city provides a detailed breakdown of how the additional funds generated from the proposed rate increase will be allocated. This will help foster trust and understanding among the community members, demonstrating a commitment to responsible governance. 13-132

In conclusion, I respectfully urge the city to reconsider the proposed mooring rate increase, taking into account the potential adverse effects on our maritime community, local economy, and the aspirations of the younger generation. I believe that through open dialogue and collaborative problem -solving, we can find a balanced and sustainable solution that benefits both the city and its residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about any updates or insights on this matter.

Regards,
Conner Colletto
805-616-0349
connercollettokyahoo-com
13-133

From: Jennifer Krestan
Sent: January 30, 2024 1:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members:

As a mooring permittee in Newport Harbor, I find it difficult to understand why the Harbor Commission wishes to undertake a rate increase that will make it more difficult, if not financially impossible, for non -wealthy boat owners to keep their boats in Newport Harbor.

The City of Newport Beach's original concept for the mooring fields was to create an opportunity for common folk to be able to have a boat on a mooring and enjoy Newport Harbor. It also included many shore moorings to allow boaters to access their off -shore moorings.

Unlike piers and docks, offshore moorings have no amenities. With the exception of shoreboat service provided by Balboa Yacht Club and Newport Harbor Yacht Club at a cost to their members, there is no access to offshore moorings except by boats from on- shore moorings ($$$) or trailers.

Based on the square feet of tidelands actually used by offshore moorings, offshore mooring permittees are currently paying 5 to 10 times more than other users of the tidelands, including waterfront homeowners with docks and major corporations that operate marinas. The proposed increases make these differences far, far worse. We have been advised that this blatantly violates the Beacon Bay Bill, we well as other statues and regulations that govern the trusteeship of the harbor. It is plain discrimination.

Over the past few years participation in sailboat racing in Orange County has declined dramatically, partly due to COVID and largely due to the expenses associated with maintaining a racing sailboat, e.g., entry fees, bottom cleaning, crew expenses, sail maintenance and replacement, haul outs, fuel, etc. Increasing mooring fees is a good way to assure a further decrease in race participation.

At some point the City became more interested in creating revenue than allowing the people of Southern California the opportunity to enjoy Newport Harbor. This trend appears to be growing to the extreme.
13-134

In addition, I believe this rate increase will result in abandoned boats that will need to be sent to salvage, liveaboards forced to find other housing, a significant increase in empty moorings, and failure to provide harbor access to everyone.

Newport Harbor belongs to the people of California, not the City of Newport Beach.

Thank you.
13-135

From: Michael Brandon
Sent: January 30, 2024 1:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Unfair mooring rent increase
Attachments: Harbor Comission Stakeholder Meeting February Ist.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 6 Dear city council members,
I am a first generation boater trying to make a dream come true of exploring our oceans and beyond.

Recently the harbor commission sought an appraisal for the fair market value of the off -shore mooring rent. Unfortunately, I disagree with the methodology and outcome of the professional appraisal.

Furthermore, the Harbor commission also disagreed but recommended an arbitrary increase to the city council.

Please do not increase our mooring rent. I have included a brief document advocating for my situation believe the rates should remain on their current increase schedule which matches CPL The Harbor Commission is holding a stakeholder meeting on Thursday, February 1st at the civic center.

Could you please take the time to hear our concerns for yourself and see the people that have the most to lose from this decision?
Kindly,
Michael Spano
Liveaboard
Mooring H510
13-136

7 reasons why off -shore mooring rent should
remain unchanged.

I - Netzer appraisal remains flawed

2. Newport Beach has no shore facilities

3. Newport Beach created a free market

4. Mooring field boaters are an asset to the community

5. The proposed rate increase is absurd in magnitude

6. Newport Beach profits twice from off -shore moorings

7. Off -shore moorings are already over -charged
13-137

1. Netzer appraisal remains flawed
• This has been discussed at Harbor Comission meetings and through email to the commissioners ag nosium. Netzer's appraisal cannot be trusted as fair. • The harbor commission rejected Netzer's inflated valuation but recommended their own arbitrary rate increase.
9 The city shall not increase our burden based on the Harbor Comission recommendations of an appraisal where an entire page of said appraisal is omitted/mis sing.
13-138

2. Newport Beach has no shore facilities!
9 The city offers minimal facilities to mooring permittees. • Street parking (subject to towing)
• Public restrooms
• Shared public dock (maximum time limit of 72h)
• Unmetered Drinking water
• Free Sewage pump out
For an increase of 263% for my mooring I would expect:
• Dedicated parking.
• Long-term dingy dock.
• Dedicated restrooms.
• Hot showers.
• Sall loft/ workshop.
• Ability to book conference rooms at Marina Park
• Free coffee & warm cookies
13-139

I Newport Beach created a free market
Whether we like it or not, Newport beach created a free market to buy/sell mooring permits.

Mooring permits cost a lot of money (1.-S40,000.001ea) but have amenable taxation rates $150/month).
9 Newport Beach off -loads the traditional waitlist to one that revolves around saving income for a permit.

It took me 5 years of saving 70% of my discretional income to purchase a mooring permit. I sacrificed a lot to obtain this right and now I expect fair taxation. 13-140

4. Mooring field boaters are an asset to the community
Most people in the mooring field are average people. Newport beach boaters are policemen, teachers, lawyers, welfare recipients, machinists, carpenters, scientists and so much more.
9 There is a constant exchange of knowledge among permittees regarding all affairs of seamanship.
• Our boats are not " toys" they are our lives! Many of us forgo a land -based home to experience the wonders of the ocean on our boats.
• We are often first -responders to all incidents on the water, from electric duffy crashes to stranded paddleboarders.
13-141

5. The proposed rate increase is absurd in magnitude
* As Newport Beach boaters, we already pay property tax on our vessels and mooring rent.

Comissioners/council members/fellow citizens. Imagine if you did your research, planned out your mortgage, saved your income to cover city taxes and purchased a property within your means.
• Then suddenly the city/bank proposes to increase your monthly tax/rent from 200- 500%. How would this influence your life?
• Put yourselves in our shoes.
13-142

6. Newport Beach profits twice from off -shore moorings • I paid $40,000 for a mooring, $2400 yearly in mooring taxes, and $1800 biannually for tackle.
• The Harbormaster may rent out my mooring when it is unoccupied for $80/day ($2400/month).
• I cannot sublease my mooring to other boaters, friends or even family. • I cannot operate an AirBNB from my mooring.
• I do not receive any revenue when the harbormaster subleases my mooring. • The mooring exists at my expense but for the profit of the city. 13-143

7. Off -shore moorings are already over -charged
In Newport Beach
• Residential docks pay 1/6ththe annual tax that I pay
• Residential docks are allowed to rent their tideland access for a profit In San Diego
• Off -shore moorings in America's Cup Harbor pay 70% what I pay • They don't pay for tackle maintenance
• They don't have to spend $40k on a mooring permit
13-144

Please explain how a rate
0 increase of 2630./�(o for my
0 0 0 0 ?
mooring is considered fair .

MichaelSpano
Liveaboard
Mooring H5 10
13-145

From: gerald saba
Sent: January 30, 2024 2:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Proposed Mooring Rate Hikes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 6 Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing this letter in hopes that you care about the plight of boat owners in Newport Harbor. I have been a mooring owner in this beautiful harbor for about 50 years. The previous mooring rates have allowed my wife and I to remain boaters here and share the harbor with our family. We are both retired teachers living on fixed pensions.

The proposed mooring rate hikes would force us, and many others, out of boating. Please consider this as you vote on these proposed exorbitant rate hikes.

Sincerely,
Jerry and Anna Saba
13-146

From: Glenn Bozarth
Sent: January 30, 2024 2:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
13-147

Dear Madames and Sirs:
13-148

As a long-time permittee for an onshore mooring, and also a Newport Beach resident, I'm writing to state my objection and alarm regarding the Mooring Fee increases that are being proposed.

My family has had a shore mooring since the 1950s, and enjoyed the benefits while managing the challenges that this involves.

As you are surely aware, the'utility'of a mooring doesn't at all compare with that of dock space. We have no electricity or fresh water available to us; we must wade into the bay to launch and board our boats; and -- in the case of my mooring -- we must navigate narrow space between docks to come and go. Mine is the solo mooring between two bay front docks that are home to large boats. Particularly since mine is a sailboat (Lido 14) it's quite tricky at times to access the bay.

The moorings are one of very few means by which people without oversize financial means can access the harbor. Newport Beach has a well -deserved reputation at a playground for the elite, and this action would further that truth. And all the while no increase for the docks of the owners of $10 million plus homes?
While some increase may be appropriate, the magnitude of that proposed is outrageous. For myself and others, it would cause us to abandon our moorings. And I'm doubtful that, at those rates, you'd find others to take our place.

Please realize the impact that this action would have, and preserve the opportunity for affordable access to our unique and beautiful bay.

Thank you for your consideration,
Glenn Bozarth
Mooring E-20
13-149

From: Samantha McDonald
Sent: January 30, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Request to Reject Increase Offshore Mooring Rental Rates JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear Newport Beach City Council and staff,
My name is Samantha McDonald. I am a resident of Newport Beach, a PhD Alumni at UC Irvine, and an avid sailor in Newport's harbor and beyond.

I am contacting you in regards to the Harbor Commission's proposed increase in fair market rent for offshore moorings. My partner and I live on our sailboat on a mooring ball. During graduate school, my partner and I saved up money to afford to purchase one of these mooring balls. It allows us to call Newport Beach our home at an affordable rate. It also allows us access to the water and to fulfill our dream of sailing the Pacific Ocean during a two-year 'sea'-battical.

As you are probably aware, the Harbor Commission recently hired a third party to re-evaluate the fair market rent of our mooring ball. The third -party has estimated that the rates for owning a mooring should be increased 600%, and the commission has indicated they will increase between 360% and 600%. This means that the City of Newport Beach could increase the annual rent for those living in the harbor up to 600%. This is an unfathomable increase in any housing situation, but especially dire for those in a high -rent county facing already difficult affordable housing situations.

Our neighbors in the mooring field are working class citizens (cops, firefighters, harbor patrol, business men, machine shop workers, scientists), retired individuals that have sailed the world, and people just trying to get by. Our community takes care of the harbor and watershed because it is our home. Our neighbors have also been first on the scene to many incidents of drowning, boat crashes, and even helicopter crashes. We have a deep passion for the harbor as many of us sailed all our lives. Sailboats are the icon of Newport Beach (including the city's insignia). All of us will have nowhere to go if the City decides to increase rates by such a large amount.

This estimate from the third -party was based, in our opinion, on very bad math and uneducated awareness of the overall market for moorings, slips, and harbor usage. We have discussed the details of the inappropriate calculations in our public comments to the committee. The Harbor Commission has proposed its own rates based on the third party evaluation, but has not provided any evidence of how those rates were calculated as well. These rates are still more than double the current rates and provide no sound explanation for their calculation. Thus, we can only conclude that the rates proposed by the city are arbitrary.

Many of our neighbors are considering fighting back with some already filing lawsuits against the city. I hope that the community can come to a harmonious agreement that avoids such tensions.

I am requesting that the City reject these increases in rates. It's clear given the current values within the private market transfer of moorings, the overall cost of mooring maintenance and living compared 13-150

to similar mooring situations, and the affordable housing crisis of Orange County that these rate increases are unjustified.

Thank you for your time listening to your constituents. I am happy to talk more if you have any questions.

Dr. Samantha McDonald
(443) 690 - 2021
sammc5773(@Lymail.com
13-151

From: Carter Harrington
Sent: January 30, 2024 3:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fees
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content City Council
I strongly support keeping mooring rates at their current rate. There is no justification for the increase and you are making boating un-afforclable in newport and decreasing public use. 13-152

From: Diane Bock
Sent: January 30, 2024 5:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: on shore mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please, please do not drastically raise the rates for on -shore moorings. Can we PLEASE retain the opportunity for families to own and use small boats without breaking the bank? Many generations of kids have grown up here, learned to sail and row and many, many have gone on to sail bigger boats - and to use the skills they learn to bolster the community .......

What a shame if keeping the boat costs more each year than the original purchase price. I'm trying to imagine the consequence of costly mooring fees - likely bigger, fancier boats and this will decrease the appeal of the beaches by forming a blockade.

Does this need to be all about money?
— Diane Bock
13-153

From: Christopher Hoskins
Sent: January 30, 2024 9:06 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Newport Harbor Mooring Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council Members,
I recently reviewed the proposed rate hike schedule for moorings in Newport Harbor, and I can't comprehend why they are so dramatic.

As a business owner, I understand that rate hikes are necessary. However, annual rate hikes should be in the 3% to 7% range.

Please set reasonable rate hikes moving forward.

Thank you,
Chris Hoskins
58 Cormorant Circle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
714-470-6400
13-154

From: Kathy Shaw
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:00 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee increase
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council,
I am writing to voice my opinion on the increase in mooring fees. The cost of everything is going up and it is understandable that mooring fees will increase as well but to raise the fees this much and this fast puts good people in jeopardy. This is wrong and I am totally against such an increase.

Sincerely,
Kathy Shaw
13-155

From: Lisa Worsch
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:53 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am writing to you regarding the proposed increase in private mooring fees.

I have been a resident taxpayer of Newport Beach since 1994.

The proposed increase in private mooring fees is outrageous. It fosters elitism by making it cost prohibitive & by limiting access to safe anchorage. It is discriminatory against multilhull ownership as that vessel cannot be kept in a regular boat slip space.

The Harbor Commission is not representing the interests of our Newport Beach citizens.

Thank you.

Lisa Worsch MD
Sent from my Whone
Lisa Worsch MD
13-156

From: Jessie Fleming
Sent: January 31, 2024 9:09 AM
To: Harbor Feedback; Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My husband and I have lived aboard in Newport Beach since 1987. It was our dream to pay off our boat save up a cruising kitty and cruise around the world. We successfully achieved our goal cruising for over 7yrs in the 90's-2000. We still live on our boat on our mooring and our livelihood is captaining yachts. We are happily semi -retired living on Social Security and Captaining jobs. We have raised 3 children and love Living in Beautiful Newport Beach as our home. Unfortunately the City continues to raise our mooring rates even though they provide no electricity, no showers, no parking and no facilities other then a public dock to leave our dingy ashore while off the boat. The city is now proposing to increase all mooring monthly payments with an increase of over 400%. Many of us who have lived here for over 40 years will no longer be able to afford the mooring rates. Many of us have budgeted to retire here on our social security income and can not afford slip rent which leaves us no where to go. We are a community who helps police the bay, the public docks and have saved many boats in distress, paddle boarders, and even saved non swimmers from drowning after falling off their rented paddle boards. There are approximately 48 live aboard permits out of the 700. We are all good citizens with legal live aboard permits. Most liveaboards are retirees and follow the many rules of the bay. We are all enjoying our homes in Newport Beach and contributing to the community. Many nonliveaboards travel from all over Orange County to enjoy beautiful Newport Beach on their boats and will not be able to afford the increase as well. If you're interested in keeping mooring rates affordable for everyone to enjoy and not social engineering please hear our plea.

Thankyou
Jessie Fleming
Mooring J23
13-157

From: Kevin Olswang
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mooring permit holder. The 300% increase to mooring holders is completely outrageous and unfair Sent from my Whone
13-158

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Permit Fee Incease
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Don Potenza
To: Newport Beach City Council
Please keep me anonymous to the Harbor Department. I'm fearful of retaliation for what I'm sending you.

Please do not allow these outrageous, unfair and unwarranted Mooring Fee Increases.

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

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

The appraiser used is comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare Tidelands with moorings to Real Estate with Tidelands, Marinas which operate for profit and Yacht Clubs which entice more members to join and gain financial benefits? When compared to all other mooring fields in California we are in line with their rates. The only one that are having rates increased are a very small portion of moorings in San Diego. Those rates are scheduled to increase over time and I don't believe have started yet. They may never become effective if the holders try to get it changed. Those moorings also have amenities that we do not and I believe are managed by a for profit company. Let the Newport Mooring Association hire an Independ Appraiser who has experience in this area.

When comparing Tidelands use for docks we pay much more per square foot or linear foot than houses with docks. I believe their docks can be rented creating a financial gain. I've seen them advertised through the years. Your appraiser states there is a 13-159

market for renting moorings by MP holders. This may be occurring but it is at the risk of losing their MP. The vast, vast majority of us abide by this rule. Don't punish us for the few that don't. Of course comparing Marinas to moorings is absurd. They have many amenities that moorings don't and operate for profit.

The reason I want to remain anonymous to the Harbor Department is for fear of reprisal because of what I'm about to state. I know that the Harbor Department is a very small part of the City Budget and may not get much attention. However they are building a very large and unnecessary Bureaucracy and in FY 23-24 their Total Operating Budget cost the city $2,445,960. Their Salaries and Benefits alone are $1,523,633. They have gone from 3 Full Time Employees and 9.39 Part Time in FY 22 & FY 23 to 9 Full Time and 4.29 Part Time in FY 24. Like I said I've been around here a long time and although I don't know the numbers for when the Sheriff's Department ran the moorings for the city but I'm certain it wasn't and still wouldn't cost anywhere near this amount. There has been little improvement since the Harbor Department took over except for the docks they have and little else. Is it really worth using this exorbitant amount of your money? This would be like telling someone renting an apartment from you that you're increasing their rent by 4 to 5 times. Obviously they would have no option but to leave in almost every case. Be reasonable basing rates on the CPI is fair. I learned we were using the CPI or 2% whichever is lower. It should have been based on the CPI only. Going back to 2016 when this rate formula was adopted and using just the CPI not the 2% to create new more fair rates would be the right thing to do.
13-160

From: Robert Kinney
Sent: January 31, 2024 10:34 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

H i:

I represent two different segments of the mooring population. My family owns a 11city mooring". Certainly, we understand that all things cost more these days. But the massive, proposed increase will eliminate a whole segment of the boating population from bay. Once upon a time, Newport Beach lived for the harbor. As the town transitions from a bunch of "beach houses" to full time residents, we need to make sure that the lower end of the boating community is not jettisoned. There is a reason that a mooring is a low-cost solution. Remember a mooring is a pain in the rear to deal with. You are required to have a boating skillset to be able to get on and off, plus you must have a plan in place to get back and forth. These people are better to have in our harbor as opposed to a bunch of dinner boats and Rental Duffys.

From a business perspective, I own Alcom Marine Electronics which services several of the mooring owners. The massive increase in costs may just eliminate a whole echelon of customers we have. When I was in High School, the harbor was full of boat dealers, and service businesses, half of those have had to move "up the hill" to avoid the high cost of doing business in the harbor, the other half are gone. Just think about Mariner Mile in 1975, and then look at it today. It no longer is worried about supporting the marine community.

Don't just see this as an opportunity for a revenue increase, please keep in mind that most of the mooring owners have a family -oriented asset out on the bay, which the preservation of this lifestyle is essential for our community.

Thank you,
13-161

Robert Kiitmey
Alcom Marine Electronics
711 West 17th Street
Unit C 12
Costa Mesa, California 92627
949 515 1727 office
949 279 5048 mobiJe
13-162

From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: January 31, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: February 1 Meeting to discuss Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

January 31, 2024
To the Newport Beach City Council and Harbor Commission It seems like every couple of years the Harbor Commission is intent on resurrecting the increase of mooring permit fees. I thought that the current per foot pricing was a good compromise for the city and the boat owners.

When I first acquired the 40 foot mooring, the monthly permit fee was a dollar per foot; thus I paid $40 per month. The permit fee rate certainly needed an adjustment. I currently pay $133. 50 per month, with an annual increase of 2 to 3 percent. This seems fair.

It now appears that you want to raise the permit fee to $480 per month. That is a 3.6 times more than I am currently paying. What is the purpose of the proposed increase? What is the City of Newport's reasoning behind the increase? This is a ridiculous increase! Once again the City Council and the Harbor Commission are toying with a privilege for boat owners to afforclably access and use the harbor in a meaningful way, while providing revenue for the City of Newport as well as adjunct businesses. Why is it always about the money? What is the cost to revenue ratio for the City to operate the Harbor Patrol and the permit process? Have you all forgotten the legacy of the moorings in the harbor and their proposed intent? Unless you can definitively explain the necessary reason for this increase to me, I strongly encourage you to NOT increase the permit fee costs and leave in place the current rate structure.

Sincerely,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(a-)qmail.com
13-163

From: Eric Young
Sent: January 31, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Scully, Steve; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie; Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy; Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council; Harp, Aaron; O'Neill, William; [email protected]; Avery, Brad; Weigand, Erik; Grant, Robyn; Blom, Noah; Kleiman, Lauren; [email protected] Subject: Objection to Discriminatory Practices Against Mooring Permittees ItA I tKFVAL UVIMET=1,10 I %-Ll%-r, 1111KIWattachments unlessTu recognize the sender and know the content Good afternoon,
I am a homeowner and business owner in Newport Beach. I purchased my 45ft offshore mooring permit in 2017. 1 write to express opposition to the recent discriminatory practices targeting Newport Harbor Mooring Permittees.

The proposed rate hike for offshore moorings constitutes illegal discrimination and reflects disparate treatment of offshore mooring permittees in relation to bayfront homeowners (and other users of Newport Harbor). The proposed rate hike is unconscionable and would operate to force the sale of mooring permits due to the unafforclable rate hikes. This unconscionable rate hike is similar to problematic real estate property tax increases which were stopped by California Proposition 13.

There should be no change to the current offshore mooring rate structure.

Previously, the Newport Harbor Commission attacked the rights of mooring permittees through proposed Title 17 amendments and proposed dangerous design changes to the mooring fields. Although the purported goal of the design change was to increase usable space in the harbor, the City simultaneously allowed construction of new docks which extend into the navigable area near the back bay bridge. The design of the mooring fields should not be changed and Title 17 should not be amended.

Respectfully submitted,
Eric Young
818-458-2570
[email protected]
13-164

From: [email protected]
Sent: January 31, 2024 2:57 PIVI
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council Subject: comment letter
Attachments: comment letter.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Regarding mooring fees
13-165

To the Harbor Commission and whoever else this concerns, My name is Mike Thompson and my partners and I own Newport Landing Sportfishin and Daveys Locker Sportfishing and Whale Watching. We own 4 x 75 foot moorings in the harbor and are very concerned with the proposed increases in monthly / annual "rental" fees. We have the following comments which you can address at the meeting tomorrow evening.

We purchased the rights to our moorings from private individuals over the 45 years that we have been in business in Newport Harbor, as we added vessels to our fleet. The fees were reasonable and cheaper than renting slips at docks around the harbor. This fit our business model and allowed us to grow. Over the last several years the moorings have become a contentious issue with plans to reconfigure the existing mooring fields, and associated finger pointing about the Cities intentions- We did not get involved in all that after concerns were addressed by Mr Beer at a Council meeting last year. However, this latest issue raises a whole new set of concerns.
1 — The pro po sed new mo nth ly rates pe r foot a re co m plete ly u n rea sona b le i n ou r opinion. Our 75 foot moorings are going from $3 + per foot to $17 + per foot per month after an analysis by a consulting firm. Absolutely out of line, A previous exercise several years ago resulted in much smaller increases over the last 3 years so where did you cherry pick this new firm from. Botton line our 4 moorings will i ncrea se f ro rn a bout $ 11, 000 pe r yea r to $61,000 pe r yea r. Th i s is p roblem ati c fo r the continued success of our business.
2 - These moorings are located on state waters as they are beyond the pier head boundary line. I don't know the details of jurisdiction here but at the very least I am sure the Coastal Commission would have something to say. 3 — A lot of th ese moo ri ngs a re ow ned by peo ple who have sm a I ler vesse Is, some of them live aboard, retired folks or lower income people who will not be able to afford this HUGE "rental" increase. I remember when I was growing up on the peninsula my parents had a small boat that we kept on a mooring in the A field.

They wou Id not h ave been a bl e to afford someth i ng I i ke w hat you p ro pose here At some point this becomes a public access issue which I am sure the Coastal Commission would love to comment on.
13-166

4 - You have also submitted estimates of what the moorings are worth. If you enforce these rent -increases the moorings will be greatly devalued because due to the expense they will no longer be in demand.
5 -1 keep referring to your use of the term "rentals" in quotation marks because I think there is a certain degree of ownership here as these mooring have been trading privately forever. I think you need to come to grips with that. Especially when you consider that the city does not even pay for the maintenance of the moorings. We do.

So, these are just a few of our concerns and I am sure you will get more from others who have been more involved in this issue for many years. The mooring association of which we are not a member comes to mind. So don't make this look like a land grab, because it does.

Mike Thompson / Newport Landing Sportfishing
13-167

From: Matt Trenton
Sent: January 31, 2024 3:19 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Rate Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Dear City Council Member(s),
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed increase in onshore/offshore mooring fees which is to be reviewed at the February 1 st Council meeting. I have resided in the Newport Beach area for many years and it has long been a dream of mine to own a boat that would be moored in Newport Harbor. In 2021, my wife & I felt that we were in a financial position that we could finally make this dream a reality. We purchased a mooring permit at that time and shortly thereafter purchased a boat which we use regularly.

Since we purchased our mooring, we have been incredibly happy with the joy and beauty of Newport Harbor. It truly is an experience that we never would have been privy to if we had not taken the leap and proceeded with our purchases. We regularly invite friends and family to join us. It gives us great joy when children visit and they are able to learn how to protect local wildlife, be good stewards of the environment and catch & release their first fish! We are a family of nature lovers and I can't think of a better way to immerse a new generation into nature and stress the importance of taking care of the environment.

With that being said, the currently proposed increases in monthly mooring rates are absurd; in my opinion. I do not have an issue with nominal rate increases commensurate with inflation, etc.. but an overnight increase of several hundred percent I frankly do not understand. When reviewing the Appraisal Report provided by Netzer & Associates, it is very challenging to see how this could be an apples -to - apples comparison. It seems that the basis of their analysis researches private yacht club mooring fees and attempts to apply those findings to justify rate increases. This does not make sense as several other services (tenders, maintenance of mooring tackle, etc..) are included in private mooring fees. Additionally, it seems that the report attempts to compare marina slip fees and miscellaneous real estate values to justify findings. There is very little information that I could find in this report to provide an unbiased comparison to the question at hand for moorings in Newport Harbor. The current fees for Newport Harbor appear to be very much in line with the data collected from other comparable public harbors in the state (page #33 of report). It seems that the appraisal started with a rental rate in mind and then tried to work backwards & provide the math to justify a number rather than providing a truly impartial analysis of the fair market rent.

In summary, I would strongly encourage you to reconsider the proposed mooring fee increases. This would create a financial hardship for (in my best guess) a majority of the permit holders. I feel that a majority of permittees would be trying to transfer their permits immediately & would also try to sell their boats as they would have nowhere to park them. This will create a downward spiral for the boating community in the Newport Harbor. A reasonable increase in fees commensurate with inflation would be acceptable but an increase of the proposed amount is unfathomable.

Thank you for your consideration,
13-168

Matt Trenton
13-169

From: George Wallims
Sent: January 31, 2024 6:23 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Morning fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Where are we headed? 50 years ago I was in my twenties and I had a 24-foot Sloop in a slip for $30 a month, and now 50 years later minimum wage is $17 a month a 24-ft boat in a slip will cost you over $2,000 a month. Our country's deficit is over 33 trillion dollars! Why is that? Could it be government spending? I volunteer to take Disabled American Veterans out sailing all the time. Maybe our government officials should do volunteer work instead
of having such exorbitant salaries. My point is this, where will we be 50 years from now? I believe what you are doing with the mooring fees is unconscionable! You will be making it unaffordable for us to stay here in the harbor! I think one thing that you
should consider is the people that have been Faithfully paying their morning fees over the last 20-30 years. I myself have had my morning for 25 years and I have invested over $75,000 in it. I believe you should grandfather those that have been here for all
these years and give an exemption to the high fees that you are proposing. I also believe that veterans should be given that same consideration. We have been here for 50 years and wanted to spend the rest of our lives fulfilling our dream! Please don't take
that away from us. When you talk about fair market value? Are you talking fair market value to the wealthy, to the middle class, or to the poor?
Regards,
George M Wallims
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
13-170

From: Cathy Kinney
Sent: January 31, 2024 7:06 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council; Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William
Subject: Newport Harbor mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good evening,
I write to all of you today as a 60 year citizen of Newport Beach, a boat owner and a mooring owner. I am very concerned about the proposed rent increase for offshore moorings in Newport Harbor. The substantial increase is going to negatively impact not only the boat owners but also all those who enjoy using our beautiful bay. Those of us who keep our boats on a mooring are caretakers of the bay. We keep an eye out on each other's boats and report issues to the Harbor Department. We also help other boaters, both residents and tourists, when they need assistance while out on the bay. The moorings are also home to many legal live-aboards, some of whom will not be able to afford the increase. Affordable housing is scarce in Orange County and your change is going to make it worse.

Those of us who keep our boats on a mooring do not have the advantages of those who keep theirs on private piers or marinas but we are the ones who are getting our rates drastically increased. I ask you to please consider how your increase in mooring fees is going to adversely affect a group of people that love Newport Harbor and may no longer be able to afford to keep a boat here.

Thank you,
Cathy Kinney
13-171

From: George Wallims
Sent: January 31, 2024 9:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The proposed rate increase on mooring fees will curtail my ability to enjoy boating in Newport harbor, as I have been here for 50 years and was looking forward to finishing the rest of my days here. I feel a sense of being unfairly targeted and discriminated against to these proposed fee increases, particularly, when comparing my situation with private peers and similar Tideland permits that remain unaffected! I feel that the methods of appraisal
have been unfairly and incorrectly done! I would also like to refer you to the Beacon Bay bill, where Newport City is to provide affordable boating! What you are proposing is definitely not affordable! In essence what you are doing is quadrupling someone's
living expenses! I think one thing that you should consider is the people that have been Faithfully paying their Mooring fees over the last 20 to 30 years. I myself have had my morning for 25 years and I have invested over $75,000 in it. I believe you should
grandfather in those that have been here for all these years and give an exemption to the high fees that you are proposing. I also believe that veterans should be given that same consideration. We have been here for 50 years and wanted to spend the rest of
our lives fulfilling our dream! Please do not take that away from us! Regards, George M Wallims Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
13-172

From: Jeanne Conwell
Sent: February 01, 2024 10:29 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Council Members,
As a current mooring lessee for more than 30 years, I am very surprised by the proposed mooring fee increase which is exorbitant.

Please consider an increase which is resonable. We not only pay for the monthly lease, but the maintenance of the mooring.

In question are mooring holder discrimination, unreliable methods of appraisal and providing affordable boating.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeanne Conwell
Corona Del Mar
Mooring D025
13-173

From: Jeff Johnston
Sent: February 01, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content kli,safe.

The current proposed mooring fees are simply outrageous and unjustified. Boating is a sport for all income levels and moorings especially have been a cost effective way to keep it affordable for all. There is absolutely no justification for raising rates.

We as permit holders pay ALL the maintenance costs for these assets, not the city. We also paid the prior owners with an expectation of predictable use and cost. The city rents these assets that THEY don't maintain and keeps 100% of the revenue. If rates are increased for transient short term rentals, that is a chance to make money, but NOT increased fees for the permanent permit holders. It's about as close to theft as I can imagine.

Jeff
13-174

From: Steven Legere
Sent: February 01, 2024 12:45 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Fee increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
0 on fee increase
Sent from my Whone
13-175

From: joanne harrison
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:14 PM
To: Scully, Steve; O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council Subject: Proposed Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Folks,
The proposed rate increases are definitely unreasonable. The moorings are again being targeted when the docks and private piers also have similar Tideland permits and are not charged nearly as much. Compared to the shore moorings we have extremely limited access, no facilities, and no ability to add direct power and water access.

It is unreasonable that we are being discriminated against in this way.

JoAnne Harrison
13-176

From: Randall Newcomb
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I understand the necessity to raise funds for future projects, but the current proposal definitely looks to be discriminatory against permit holders for moorings even though all permit holders for the harbor are under the same use laws. If you intend to raise rates, then they should be equal across all permit holders in the harbor at a minimum. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form.

Appreciate your time,
Randall
13-177

From: Desi Jones
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Offshore mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good evening.

This email is to voice my opposition to the rate increases proposed.

My mooring in Avalon cost me 2376. Including CC fees of 3%.

That comes out to less than 200$ per month. I'm not sure where your appraiser came up with the numbers he did but they ar way off for the market value.

Also the amount shoreside dock leases pay is considerably less than you would have the offshore mooring pay.

Please realize our ability to enjoy our harbor and surrounding waters will be greatly impacted by such an increase.

Thank you Desi Jones
Mooring J49
13-178

From: Wayne Fultz
Sent: February 01, 2024 1:40 PIVI
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring increase. Please keep the increase tied to something ..like my 100% combat veteran benefit..
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK link7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 6 74 year old veteran..with. grandkids..so I my enjoy the last season of my life..God give you wisdom.in.Jesus name
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
13-179

From: kartbin
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: No Mooring rate increases. Decreases only
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

I'm requesting that there be no mooring rate increases. We are not receiving any services so the rats should decrease.

Meanwhile, dock owners are paying low rates and have the ability to rent dock space and therefore generate income. This is completely inequitable and unreasonable.

Be reasonable and fair please!
Thank you, Linda Miller
13-180

From: Pengalo
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Newport Mooring Association
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase- Opposed.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members of the City Council -
Thank you for inviting public comment on the Mooring Permits, Fees, and Reg u lations/Pol icies. Please include my email as part of the public record on the matter of proposed changes to the mooring permit fees and regulations.

For the sake of brevity, I will state that as a th i rd -generation property owner on Balboa Island (324 Amethyst) & shore -mooring permittee (N145), I am in concurrence with the Newport Mooring Association's stated concerns regarding the proposed changes to the mooring fields and mooring permit costs.

I ask you as our representatives to reject the proposed "What the Market Will Bear" approach, which will drive out all but the wealthiest and most elite citizens and converts the City from a governance and administrative role into a for -profit business striving to maximize return of the permittees to subsidize less profitable City operations. The fees for business -operated use of the tidelands such as boat -rental docks, fuel docks, and restaurant -patron docks are an appropriate application of a market -value approach, but NOT our recreational -use moorings.

It is my position that city fees should be based upon a fair estimate of the cost of the service provided by the city, in this case the issuance and administration of our mooring permits and the monitoring of our moorings on -the -water, not some fair -market -rent value, as we are not renting anything. We are conferred no exclusive property right to the surface or tideland, can not sub -let or lend "our" mooring to another, and are responsible for providing and maintaining to city standards all of our mooring tackle, lines, posts etc. All we have is a permit to place and maintain these things and an obligation to not obstruct any public use of the waters or tidelands we "occupy" with our mooring.

Again, please be responsive to the concerns of the Newport Mooring Association as well as considering my concerns and perspective on a more proper approach to the mooring fees.

I III - M11 q. hVeem
Peter Leinau
Mooring Permittee N145
13-181

Property owner 324 Amethyst
cc: Newport Mooring Association
13-182

From: Jon Kosoff
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:21 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Increases - Disappointed Mooring Owner [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I know there is a meeting tonight and unfortunately I am unable to make it.

As a new mooring owner I am shocked and outraged by the proposed increases. I am a long time Newport Beach Resident. I have lived here for 45 years. I finally got a mooring after I was able to afford one and am excited to have it with my wife and kids. I am mooring N7.

I understand a small cost of living increase but this is so outrageous. It isn't right or fair. Frankly I may have not purchased the mooring if I knew this was the case. My investment will be worth less money and frankly I am not sure I can afford it long term at this level of increase.

This seems like a total money grab and not fair to honest hard working Newport Beach residents. Again happy with small increases and that makes sense and inflation and management costs increase. But this is 100% wrong!
I am 100% against the increase and frankly am shocked this would even be legal.

Happy to discuss over the phone.

Thanks,
Jon & Kaite Kosoff
949.309.9969
13-183

From: Winner1436
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:28 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Joe and other council members
i have owned my shore mooring for over 40 years
during our current times I understand the need to increases prices due to inflation and cost related change
but the proposal for our moorings is outrageous.

I have never heard of anything changing that drastically. i would ask you to look at this please
how can a change even be proposed to be this much??.
a change in price is warranted - but not something like this. and whatever the increase might be - there should be a look at how to implement this. maybe a prop 11 approach -for existing long time mooring holders have a small change every year - but new holders have a much larger change upon their start up thank you for your support
buzz Lowry
mooring P 102
13-184

From: Dale Bowman
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:36 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: 2024 Mooring Fee Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content MLe.

Hello. My name is Dale Bowman. I moved to Newport in 1968. My wife and I have been mooring holders since 2005
I am 70 years old. I have owned boats since I was 11 years old. I learned to design boats, and in 1976 1 designed my own boat, a 25'trimaran.

I built her myself and launched her in 1981. 1 originally had an end -tie (the boat is 18'wide, so won't fit in a standard slip). I paid $228 per month to Lido Yacht Anchorage.

Incremental increases raised our slip rent to $675 per month. For a 25' boat. We could not afford this, so moved our boat to San Diego. We got a nice end -tie there, with water, electricity, tons of parking, for $198 per month.

Unfortunately, it was a 75-minute drive.

We stayed there for 6 years. But I had grown up sailing in Newport Harbor. We missed it. Our only solution to getting back into Newport was to purchase a mooring. In 2005 we did so ... for $40,000. In addition, we pay $133 per month, for a 40' mooring. Add roughly $50 more dollars per month for the semi-annual mooring servicing. We are still happy to pay this, as we can continue to sail in Newport.

Fast forward to 2024. We are retired and living on a fixed income. Boating is still a big part of our lives. With the new proposed increase to almost $500 per month, $550 with the mooring servicing, we simply will be unable to afford this any longer. I certainly hope this is not your goal. I am not ready to give up sailing.

I believe this exorbitant fee is excessive. I doubt Newport Beach is in such dire straits financially that it has to turn to 1,200 mooring holders for revenue.

I'm curious how much the Newport homeowners pay per month, to park their multi -million dollar boats in front of their multi -million dollar homes. Maybe they just have too much financial power to be taken on. This is sad.

Please reconsider this huge increase. Imagine if your home mortgage just increased 500% 1 appreciate your time.

Dale Bowman
13-185

From: Penpearl
Sent: February 01, 2024 2:55 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring Fee Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My family has lived on Balboa Island since 1942 and we have had an onshore mooring for the majority of that time. We keep our boat insured, registered and have the mooring serviced every two years as required. It has been wonderful to have access to the water and ocean and a beautiful experience to grow up with and appreciate the beauty of our wonderful city, bay and ocean. Many of us long time residents are not rich and this is one of the few remaining things we can enjoy for a reasonable price. I can understand a small increase but not the huge ones that are being discussed. We would probably not be able to afford it. Newport Beach is not only for the rich that are new to the city.

Thank you for your consideration,
Penny Darling
120 Pearl Avenue
Balboa Island
(949) 675-2661
13-186

From: Tim Geiman
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:18 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council Subject: Opposition to Mooring Rental Rate Increases
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ,All-.

This proposed increase is a blatant unfair targeting of mooring holders utilizing questionable and unreliable appraisal methods. A huge rate increase will greatly impact everyone's ability to enjoy boating in Newport Harbor. Mooring holders get virtually no benefits from the City to begin with so this massive proposed increase is comical to even propose. There are no shore boats, no electrical and areas to get a washdown or fill up water.

As a mooring holder and Newport Beach resident, I oppose the proposed rental rate increases for mooring permits.

Tim Geiman
timqeiman(��yahoo.com
949.200.7495
13-187

From: Dave Morse
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Potential Mooring Rate Increase
Dear CounciL Members,
I am doing aLL I can to attend this evening's meeting on 2/11/2024. The storm conditions and the impact they have had on mywork may make attendance impossibLe.

I am presentLy a mooring permittee. My wife and I Love our Little sLice of Newport Harbor and have kept our boat on H-35 since 2011. The cards deaft to us have forced us to Live on my income aLone. StiLL, we are abLe to own and maintain a boat under the current rates charged by Newport Beach. My concern is that if fees increase as much as has been pubLished, they may price me out of Newport. I Love Newport, I aLways have and aLways wiLL. I want nothing more than to continue being abLe to afford boat ownership in the harbor.

PLease do aLL you canto keep the mooring fees at the afforclabLe rate they are now. 1knowl am not aLone in my fear of being priced out of the harbor. Rate increases based on cost of Living area fairway to increase fees and maintain affordability for families Like mine.

PLease heLp in anyway you canto keep this wonderful slice of boat ownership affordable for peopLe like me and families like mine.

Warmest regards,
David Morse
Lupe Morse
13-188

are less, he disregards the rates because they have not had a rate increase since 2006. Prices are market driven and I have known people that have moved their boats to other harbors because of more affordable rates, like those in San Diego.

The appraisal reported in December 26, 2024 by Mr. Netzer does not reflect a good analysis of what the rental rates should be for the offshore moorings and should not be adopted. I strongly urge you not to consider this option.

Sincerely yours,
Terry W. Trombatore
(949) 463-7333
terry.trombatore(a-)-qmail.com
13-189

From: Terry Trombatore
Sent: February 01, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Please Read: Tonights Offshore Mooring Rates Consideration JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content February 1, 2024
To Newport City Council and Harbor Commission
Re: Meeting to discuss mooring the proposed rental increases Harbor Master Paul Blank was kind enough to send me the links to the meeting agenda and supporting attachments to review.

I read through Attachment "D" which is a report from the Harbor Master to the Harbor Commission, dated January 10 2024. It includes the data from Mr. Netzer's appraisal, dated December 26, 2023.

It appears that Mr. Netzer has used the Ratio Analysis method to build the following table for his offshore rental recommendations to the Harbor Commission. ftWW*L 144..

W. bw
18L
A quick review of the Ratio Analysis is to compare the slip rates to the mooring rates for Newport Beach. I find this comparison flawed. There is no comparison to keeping a boat in a slip as compared to on a mooring. Before coming to Newport Harbor, I kept my boat in a forty foot slip in Dana Point for over ten years. I even had live aboard status. To draw an analogy to a slip vs a mooring; it would be like going camping and staying in an RV vs a tent. The amenities that you pay for in your rent for a slip are the safety from storms, electricity, water, phone and a storage box with a full restroorn with hot showers, trash disposal and laundry services, not to mention parking. You have none of those amenities on a mooring, not to mention having to pay for the bi-annual maintenance of $1,200 to $1,500 and having to figure a way to get to and from your mooring. So how can Mr. Netzer make a FAIR comparison of the rent paid for a slip to those of a mooring. It does not make sense.

In Mr. Netzer's appraisal, he did a Capable Rentals Approach, in which he compared the rental rates here in Newport for moorings in other harbors. Even though he reports the rates in San Diego, which 13-190

From:

Sherlene Abdelnour
Sent:

February 01, 2024 3:36 PM
To:

Dept - City Council
Cc:

Sherry Abdelnour
Subject:

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

Dear City Council Members,
This email is in response to the desire of the city Council to raise the mooring rates in Newport Beach harbor. My years in business as well as personal life, when commercial or personal real estate, rent or mortgages are to be raised, Social Security, cost -of -living raises in corporations, etc, it's done within reason. It's a very small percentage, perhaps done annually. This is something a human being can deal with whether on a fixed income or not. It is truly what is fair and would be may be called the golden rule in life or some people may say karma. This kind of a hike in our fees, or any fees, is rather questionable.

It's a game changer!
I own mooring B-52 and I've had it for several years. For a few years, a trawler has been on it, and now a sailboat. I've enjoyed my location very much because I'm right at Balboa Island —a dinghy ride away from great restaurants and shopping. I've had both mooring and sailboat for sale, because it's more than I could handle now. I have interested parties. However, that has waned. I think they are looking into the situation. This hike will make it more than impossible to sell some thing we've invested in. I feel fortunate that I'm not living on my boat now. Or it might really be a life game changer! I think the majority of mooring holders, as well as liveaboard's are grateful to enjoy the harbor and have pride in their boat and have a great camaraderie with other boaters. I'm not saying that's true for all! I don't understand how this percentage or amount was determined. It's unlike any other hike in history of any marina from my knowledge. I've been in Marina del Rey and also San Diego. Will this increase or any other percentage of increase, give us additional public docks to share the space with other dinghies or pump out stations or a water taxi perhaps?
I'm looking forward to the meeting tonight that the Harbor commission will be listening to comments, which I hope our positive and not out of line as I've seen at other meetings from some mooring holders! My request to you is that you reconsider this giant step of an increase. To me it's unfathomable.

And if anyone would answer this question for me, I would appreciate it. It just seems quite coincidental that the City Council recently approved a multi -million dollar building. Anything to do with the decision to hike our mooring fees?
Warm regards,
Sherry Abdelnour
Mooring B-52
13-191

Sent from my Whone
13-192

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

McCray
01, 2024 4:08 PM
00000000000000001-larbor Commission; Harbor Feedback;
Dept - City Council
McCray
41�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��l,�'It��ll-Ilt-il-Ilt-il-Ilt-ll-Ilt-11-Ilt� 400400400FW: Harbor Commission - Mooring Increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Harbor Commission and City Council Members,
I am writing in protest against the proposed increase in mooring fees by the Harbor Commission. As a mooring holder of D-56, which has been in my family since 1961, 1 believe the increase is excessive, unfair and is not supported by a reliable method of appraisal.

My biggest complaint is that Netzer4os appraisal is way off base because the comps he refers are not comparable at all of an off shore mooring. Specifically:
1) Waterfront Property - It includes comparable 40market rents�o as waterfront property with docks, which is absolutely ridiculous. This definitely is NOT a fair market rent comp, as the cost of a waterfront home does not at all compare with an offshore mooring. There is no access, water, power, or security with an offshore mooring, as there is with a private dock and there is no value of resale for a mooring holder. Netzer claims in his appraisal, since llgKhere is no active real estate market for the sale of submerged tidelandsi", yet he instead makes an assumption that an appraisal of uplands land value (bayfront house) creates a *benchmark4o land value. This is absurd.
2) Yacht Club mooring - Nor does a Yacht Club mooring, since those clubs provide access to/from the mooring, maintenance of the moorings (above and below water) and the additional amenities. I do not believe the city offers Odinghy* docks and/or public docks where a mooring owner can load/unload, power or clean a boat. The increase in fees by the Harbor Commission does NOT allow or reflect affordable *access* to the moorings. The rates a Yacht Clubs charge for a mooring is $10.01 more per linear foot than the existing $3.34/LF that a 30* mooring can charge. I believe the additional $10 a month barely 13-193

covers its shore boat service, dinghy dock access, power, water, etc. Therefore ' the cost of those items are included in membership dues and not available to all mooring holders. 3) Rented Slip - Also, a slip is not a comparable rate to a mooring either, as rental of a slip provides those additional amenities.

Lastly, the information regarding the sale price of moorings, should NOT be included in the appraisal, as it is irrelevant to the value, especially now since moorings are to be turned over to Harbor Commissioner in the 2023 Ordinance. This is another reason Netzer#s appraisal misses the target. All mooring holders should not be punished for the *bad* actions of people who have sold their moorings in the past.

I do not believe Netzer applied a *realistic* appraisal of the moorings, or seems he was given a different directive by the Harbor Commission outside the scope of this appraisal.

Therefore, taking the inappropriate comps of Netzer*s appraisal out of the equation, the market price of moorings along CA coast average from a low of $3.93/LF to $5.95/1-F (see chart below):

COMPRABABLE MOORING PRUCES:

Moon ng Rate
MoonrgRate
MoonrgRate
length
($�LFFJ WGH
AVG
($�LF) LOW
San Diago
1-9�-651
4,92
2,37
Wonteray
12�42'
2,62
5,90
9'17
Morro Say
3Z-60'
M31
5�50
PMar Point
24'm�n
S�a5
Santa Barbara
up to 55;
0�53
Average j �/LF
5�95
1�G
5�68
Additionally, the Harbor Commission has had the ability to increase rates based on CPI increase since 2016, which they have failed to do. If CPI increase had been done on an annual basis, the rates would be closer to the rates at other harbors (see chart below):
13-194

CPI INCREASE -SINCE 2016. WHICH HARB13REOPAMISSION HAD ABILITY TO RAISE RENT5 OVER PA5T7 YEARS N8

INCREASED
N3 EMSTMG
RATE
RATE
RATE ($! LF of
CM%
INCLUG�NG

INCREASE BY
30'-70'

INCREASE
CP1 ($ILF)
CPI OF $ILF
MOORiNG1
21317
2,SG%
3,43
0,09
3,34
201B
1B0%
3,56
0,13

3.43 21319
Mo%
3,67
0,11
a'56
2U29
I'Clu%
3,73
O'Gra
3,67
'2021
3,80%
3,38
0,14

3.73 '2022
7A0%
4,15
0,213
3�88
'2023
3,50%
4,31
0,15

4.16 ��tff: 1,1"rease TS bo-"ffd O'l cp� �ncrfu_';ff �FOYJO foot mo'�Pa. QS on f"remV �'75 �ad tii�� opj�o.Tumly but �as NOT dom-, it
On'iy Son &EL-go.,wyr�-1-V j - 5:, �nc�vdej �n r�nce­Phvfe F;r� �S 52��;s&ndecr`O;r�d lifa&-,EO�,b maor�:7g rents at crva��Ub."_- �O UA
The Harbor Commission also has the right to #lease* the mooring, if it is not being used by the mooring holder, therefore the value does not lie with the mooring holder, and should not be part of an appraisal. The value of *holding* the mooring does not equate to value of the *access*. If a mooring holder cannot *rent* their mooring to other boaters, because the Harbor Commissioner has the right, then the value of what an individual paid for it is not relevant. They do not have the right to do what they want with their mooring.

Lastly, it appears that the Beacon Bay Bill, that the Harbor Commission refers to as #reason* to increase mooring fees does not apply to moorings, but only the property in Beacon Bay. It seems the Harbor Commission is trying to punish mooring holders, instead of supporting a *fair* market value as prescribed by their duty.

I believe a *fair* market value would be to apply CPI increase going forward and make some concession for the lack of CPI increase over the past seven (7) years, that was the fault of the Harbor Commission. Mooring holders should not bear an *unfair* increase due to misinformation by an appraiser or mismanagement of the moorings.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Annie McCray Tingler
Annie McCray Tingler
(714) 540-4058 * work
[email protected]
13-195

13-196

From: Charles Bell
Sent: February 01, 2024 4:20 PM
To: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve; Dept - City Council Subject: Offshore Mooring Permit Rental Rates
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content RE: Offshore Mooring Permit Rental Rates
Dear Mayor Will O'Neill, Harbor Commissioner Steve Scully and City Council I am writing you in hope that Newport Beach will consider maintaining affordable occupied offshore mooring permittee rental rates by supporting a reasonable rent increase.

My name is Charles Bell, of the Bell Family, permittee of offshore mooring F-20 since 1977. We have maintained both a family sailboat and now a power boat on the mooring continuously for 46 years. We are grateful to have been able to afford this recreation here in Newport Beach for our 3 rd generation and are excited to introduce boating to our 4 th generation at this time.

I believe though there should be consideration given to the fact that the offshore moorings are currently occupied- not vacant. Increasing rents for existing occupied property deserves an affordable and reasonable approach to raising rents.

1. The existing permittees are largely longstanding permittees, (tenants) and could be considered "good tenants" in that the permittees pay their rent on time, and bear 100% of the cost of maintaining their premises and respectfully adhere to the Harbor rules and regulations.

In response, the Commission in acknowledging the permittees as "good tenants" in good standing, can make a finding and recommend to the City Council a rent rate increase to be affordable and reasonable.

2. The Commission can make a finding that annual rental rate, $35.00 per lineal foot established in 2016-17 were appropriate at the time, in 2016, including the annual adjustment at 2% or CPl whichever is less. Moving ahead the Commission, using the 2016 rental rate and subsequent increases to date as the base line for proposed new rent rates to be affordable and reasonable.

Therefore, the Commission can find and recommend to the City Council that an annual flat rate rent increase in the realm of approx. 26%, (3%/year for 8 years, 2016-2024), per lineal foot would be affordable and reasonable. By example the 2016 annual mooring flat rate of $35.00 per lineal foot increase would be increased in 2024 to $35.00 x 1.24 = $44.33 The current Harbor Commission discussion seems to be centered on the determination of the current "Fair Market Rent" for offshore moorings. An appraisal has been presented to the Harbor Commission. The Harbor Commission has responded initially with a "subjective" recommendation for consideration of an offshore rent amount that is 24% of the amount one may pay for a slip in Balboa Yacht Basin Marina. The appraisal recommends rent rates from 30-32% of Balboa Yacht Basin Marina slip rates.
13-197

While this may make sense for one searching the market for a vacant slip or offshore mooring to locate one's boat, however, I do not believe this approach for rent increase consideration is not appropriate for occupied offshore mooring permittees.

Thank you for consideration to maintain affordable and reasonable occupied offshore mooring rental rates.

Respectfully submitted,
Charles Bell
Mooring F-20
Charles Bell
[email protected]
949-584-0512
13-198

From: Sandy Manich
Sent: February 01, 2024 4:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content hLsafe.

Please stop increasing mooring fees and targeting mooring holders. I am a single woman with masters degree, six years teaching -work for the saddleback valley school district as a full time teacher AND part time bartender at Angels stadium. I have a live aboard permit. There is no money for additional mooring fees at the end of the month- period. Fees already were increased exponentially recently. Please stop targeting the least able to pay. PLEASEM
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone
13-199

From: Richard Holbrook
Sent: February 02, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Attachments: mooring rate increase
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
13-200

From: Richard Holbrook
Sent: February 02, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring rate increase
Hi -
I have my sailboat on mooring B 121 in Newport Harbor.

I am writing to express my concern and objection to the proposed rate increases.

Mooring permit holders receive no services such as restrooms, showers, shoreboat or other benefits provided in other marinas in Southern California.

In addition, the rate increase proposed is unfair particularly when comparing the proposed rates to private piers with similar Tideland permits that remain unaffected.

The proposed 335% increase in my rates is egregiously high and will make moorings unaffordable for many boat owners.

Thank you,
rmh
Richard Holbrook (design)
288 Chiquita Street
Laguna Beach CA 92651
(626) 676-9084
www.richardholbrook.com
13-201

From: Todd.Talbot
Sent: February 04, 2024 3:07 PM
To: Harbor Feedback; Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission Subject: Opposition to Mooring Rental Rate Increases
JEXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content I am writing to voice our opposition to the proposed increase on rental rates for moorings.

Unlike the thousands of slips that house boats from boat owners around the Southern California and in fact the world, we locals who utilize the moorings have these as our only means to enjoy the waters which we live around, and already pay significant property taxes to support. As many of my fellow local boaters, being retired and on a fixed income, I find that your biased proposal on moorings may in fact take away the pleasure that we worked our entire lives to enjoy in these golden years.

The mooring we use gets virtually no benefit from the City: no shore boats, no electrical service nor areas to wash, fill up water and/or dump waste. All these burdens are on us, with you now proposing to add to our burden with this added expense. If you step up the cost ... we will be looking for you to figure out how you are going to step up the service. As a mooring user and Newport Beach resident, I oppose the proposed rental rate increases for mooring permits.

Todd Talbot
949-726-2241
13-202

From: [email protected]
Sent: February 06, 2024 11:10 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: mooring fees
Attachments: Harbor Commission january 2024.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK Iink7or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 6 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members,
Attached is my written disapproval of the Harbor Commissions appraisal and overview of the existing mooring evaluation and fee proposal. In my written disapproval I itemize many different objections and opinions regarding the appraisal utilizing yacht clubs as a comparable giving value to ways to increase fees to mooring permittees. This email is not disparaging to anyone specific nor intended to be combative in nature but simply to express my complete and utter disappointment in the ways which our City is attempting to impound, repossess or create default for many mooring permittees. It is my intention, to support any and all means of opposition to this usury fee assessment that could impact so many residents, including myself a permittee H-210 and visitors. I have been in favor of finding ways to minimize the area by testing bow to bow mooring designs. I have also been in favor of many harbor initiatives but this is not one I will support. The commissions attempt to find ways to support this idea of fee increase is unconscionable and totally usury in my opinion. The way it has been done annually to date is in compliance with cost of living increases and should remain reasonable.

As a side comment: Moorings are a historic monument in our Harbor. Newport is a safe haven for boating where many, not just rich, can enjoy the benefits we provide through this offshore and onshore mooring permits. I sincerely hope that the City will NOT vote in agreement to raise the fees and impact the permittees along with the values associated with those permits.

Sincerely,
Tom lovenitti
142 5 W Bay Ave.

Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210
13-203

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

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

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

Important Facts to consider identified and not identified in Netzer & Associates Appraisal: (these are not bad items just not compara "Ie 1) Yacht club mooring fields are private members only.
2) Yacht clubs have a waiting list creating supply and demand value. 3) Supply and demand create higher price for members, non -owners. 4) Yacht club mooring fields have members who generally can afford the cost for XG I'Mr.] 11 Da 110ra
5) Yacht clubs control the mooring fields in their area. 1 13-204

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

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

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

Comparable Methods:

Using a waterfront property in comparison cannot be applicable to the appraisal. Waterfront property with pier and dock provides access and conveniences beyond that of a mooring field. The one most valuable waterfront benefit is that a home owner with a slip, dock and pier, have the right, to rent their water space at a rate of 60-$80 dollars a foot therefore receiving great benefits for that right in excess of the pier head line by the width of the float or width of the vessel providing encroachment into the common traffic space by up to 20 plus feet of benefit. Mooring permittees have no rights to rental nor benefits to access but the burden of all the maintenance with zero services attributed to a homeowner's waterfront connection. Therefore, the cost, value, comparable, rental, income approach to land facilities has no commonality.
2 13-205

Summary:

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

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

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

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

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

Newport Beach, CA 92661
H-210 Mooring
[email protected]
13-206

From: Barbara
Sent: February 12, 2024 9:53 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: O'Neill, William; Scully, Steve
Subject: The Log Cartoon about mooring increase fees
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Council, I am sure you are aware of the Mooring fee increase up to 500%. Many people in our community feel that this is truly discrimination. It's getting more press and it's making our city look bad.

This came out in the log, I thought you should know.
13-207

ttthelognewspaper 000
This is the Picture of the people who showed up at the last Harbor commission meeting. We will try to make the next city council meeting February 27, we do not believe the Harbor commission is listening to the people of our city.
13-208

now
Am
- r--.rj
At,
Nw.
eel,
rwIF,

AL
" 4�w
qw
wool
Iwo; iolsom=mMom
offoppoom
wmwoiommm�ommw
O'sommowwwwasm
moos
an
LX17-

'ro:

Brad Avery, City Counci I Member.

Re: Mooring fee increases
Dear Brad,
Cluistopher Bliss
Mooring C-75
F 11- 6 IK-3 ' 2 4 A � 1 411 -' I -a
RE-TD; -�`J_ITY C'LEERK'Ss OFF14C"
Years ago, in the 1980's I took many sailing classes at OCC and you were my instructor.

Both you and that great sailing program were a strong inspiration for me, and instilled in me a passion for sailing, the ocean, and particularly Newport Bay, I an-i now in my 70's, and semi- retired, but that passion that you helped instill deep within me is as strong as ever.

In 1992 1 bought a mooring in "C" section mooring field for my 32 foot wooden sloop. I raced in as many races as I could find, especially the Tuesday Night Wooden Bout races, sponsored by Miruicy's restaurant.

In 2006, 1 bought a beautiful Catalina 3 8, S&S design, and I spend much of my time keeping her in meticulous condition, racing as often as possible and cruising to Catalina several times each year with my wife and family.

During the time that we have owned the mooring, we have dutifully paid all the fees on time, and every 2 years kept up with the required maintenance of the mooring equipment. We have been members of South Shore Yacht Club for 10 years.

My wife, Susan, has been instructor with a Ph. D.at Saddleback College for over 25 years. She has devoted hey life to the public good, and by helping the lives of young people, has made Orange County a better place to live.

I am a professional photographer who has worked for many years for the Orange County Museum of Art, Laguna Museum, nurnerous other Orange County arts institutions, and have been an active exhibitor at the Laguna Beach Festival of Arts for 30 years.

We both are fully retiring this year and had been planning on spending as much time as possible on our boat and being involved in sailing and boating activities. Now, it seems that the Harbor Commission is considering changes that would dash our hopes and plans, along with those of many of our fellow mooring holders.

If OUr mooring fees are indeed increased by the amounts proposed by the latest figures, which were presented at the last Harbor Commission meeting, we simply will not be able to arfotd to keep the boat and mooring. This, of course, presents another dilemma that most people may face:

It may be impossible to sell the boat and mooring, as no one who is not wealthy would be able to afford the mooring fees. The market for boats on moorings may just dry up, and many people may be forced to just walk away. Their plans, like our retirement plans, wi It go down the drain. 13-211

It seems outrageous to raise the fees so astronomically, considering that we have no easy access to the mooring, no parking, no water, no power. and no amenities of any kind whatsoever.

The report that the Harbor Commission got from the Netzer appraisal is deeply flawed. When using marinas and slips as a source for comparison, it is like comparing a stay at the Ritz Carlton to camping.

Sailing is the heart and soul of Newport Beach. The images of sailboats on the city logo says as much. T'his fee increase for mooring holders prices so many people out of the harbor that it will Id 11 the spirit of sal I ing in Newport. It wil I make it i mpossible for the next, younger generation, and people new to boating to become involved unless they are very wealthy.

To the people who make up much of our local governance, an increase of a few thousand dollars may seem I ike mere pocket change.

To most mooring owners, 90% of whom are middle class, such an increase will be a devastating blow, forcing them out of boating, and out of the harbor altogether.

I am appealing to you, as a sailor, and proponent of our beautiful Newport Bay, to please exert some influence on your fellow council members, and reject the proposed fee increases for mooring holders.

Thank you,
Christopher Bliss
13-212

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
sclfinance.com
13, 2024 2: 10 PIVI
000000000000000OAvery, Brad; Weigand, Erik
City Council; Kleiman, Lauren
40040040OGeneral public comment - non agenda item for Feb 13, [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content ic
Hello City Council
I wanted to bring to your attention about the issue that mooring holders are facing. Working with the harbor commission but we do not feel we have their attention.

Charging 4 times the rate to people with moorings vs people with home docs for the same amount of the harbor, and now proposing to charge 10 times more for people with moorings.

The cartoon was in a newspaper and the City of Newport Beach is looking bad among the voting residents
13-213

�h L, City of Newp c) rt B ea c 11 & D Iscri rni nation tow@ rd mooring hold ef s Signs of dtscrimination
Unequal Treatment: Mooring holders feel they are being treated unfairly compared to others in si mi la r situ at i o n s, su c h as bei ng cha rged hig h e r fees for thei r moo ring. TK s pe rcept i a n of unequal treatment can lead to feelings of ffustration and injustice.

I nstitutionall Disc r1mination: There's a be] ief am o ng rn oor i ng ho �de rs that th e dity g overn me nt is systematically discriminating against thern by charging them higher fees. This form of d fscri mi nati a n is seen as em bedded Withi n the i n stitutiona I f ra m ework of t he city's pe I Jic les a n d practices.

Lack of Re presentalli o n: Moo ring holders m ay fe e I that th ey la c k ad equate re Prese n1at! a n iT1 the poll iti ca I sp here, m aking it dfficu It fo r th e m to advocate fo r the� r I Merests and a dd ress issues of d-i sui mi natic n a n d ii nequal treatment effecbvely.

It's i rn po riant for the Crty to add ress. th ese concerns ser-i ously, as perce ptions of d iscrii m! nation a n d i nstitutional bi as ca n have sig nificant i rn pi icatio ns f c r t rust i n govern rne nt a nd social cohesi o n. Op e n di a I ogue, tra ns parency, and efto rts to a dd ress syste mi c i neq ual iti es a re essenti a I in addressing these issues effectively.
13-214

From: kartbin
Sent: February 13, 2024 2:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Mooring rates should be decreased, not increased [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
• A rate hike up to 500% is unfair and unreasonable
• The rate proposal will result in blatant discrimination against mooring users • Mooring permit holders already pay 4 times more compared to other permits. We already pay our fair share
• Netzer appraisal is trying to peg mooring rates to full -service marina slips. This is wrong. Comparing apples to oranges
• The 2023 Netzer appraisal is flawed. In 2016 appraisal, Netzer himself indicated it was unreliable to peg mooring rates to slip rates.
• Mooring rates need to be heavily discounted since there is little access with no amenities
• Stop the Money Grab! - Stop the boat tax!. The moorings cost the city little as we pay our own way. It is simply WRONG to increase rates up to 500% Mooring rates should decrease, not increase.

Appreciatively,
Linda Miller
13-215

From: Pengalo
Sent: February 13, 2024 5:15 PM
To: Scully, Steve; Beer, Ira; Marston, Marie; Cunningham, Scott; Svrcek, Rudy; Williams, Gary; Yahn, Don
Cc: Newport Mooring Association; Blank, Paul; Dept - City Council; [email protected]
Subject: Regarding the current proposed Mooring Fee Structure- Please Reject.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Harbor Commissioners and City Staff,
As a 3rd generation member of the Newport Beach community and current shore mooring permittee, I urge your rejection of the current Netzer appraisal methodology for the many reasons cited by the Newport Mooring Association, issues raised by other more articulate residents, and by common sense. To mention a few, my boat does not occupy exclusively a strip of water from seawall to buoy, and establishing a per -square -foot charge for my mooring as if it did is ridiculous ... as is basing that per square foot charge on some permutation of waterfront home values ... as is an arbitrary adjustment of full service marina dock fees applied to our no -services -limited -access -maintenance -is -all -on -us moorings.

It seems Mr Netzer was charged by the city to develop a "Fair Market Rate" different from the previous adopted methodology, and he did so, but the current appraisal method and it's results are inappropriate, unjust, and illogical. The methodology of the original appraisal process and the adjustment for CPI satisfied the State, more than compensates the City for minimal costs of administration, and is more reflective of the proportional value of the moorings compared to private full -service, for -profit commercial marinas and courtesy docks serving waterfront for -profit businesses. This is unreasonable and opens the city up to the prospect of potentially costly litigation.

Please do not adopt the current Netzer methodology as the basis for determining the mooring permit fees.

Thank you!
Peter Leinau
Mooring N-145
5596837408
13-216

From: JOHN and GAY FOTSCH
Sent: February 25, 2024 9:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Proposed Mooring Fee Increase.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
1EXTERNAL EMATEr=90 I LLRA ImKS or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content Get Outlook for iOS
13-217

From: Admin
Sent: February 29, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: NMA Concerns on Fee Increases Including CBRE Appraisal Attachments: CBRE Appraisal - Offshore Mooring Fields 2024.pdf; NMA - Position on Offshore Mooring Rate Increase.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content d1h
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

We at the Newport Mooring Association ("NMA") would like to keep you informed, firsthand, of our concerns over the recently suggested massive fee increases being proposed by some members of the Harbor Commission.

We are sure by now each of you has seen reporting in the Orange County Register, Channel 7 news, Daily Pilo , Log and other media. We are concerned that the solicited appraisal that was obtained (Netzer Appraisal) is wildly inaccurate and is being used to justify stratospheric rate increases; rate increases we consider to be a tax on persons with moorings and a tax on boating in Newport Harbor. Attached is a copy of an independent appraisal done by CB Richard Ellis ("CBRE") that shows that the fair market rates are approximately what is currently in effect, with modest increases consistent with the cost of living.

The attached independent appraisal was presented to the Harbor Commission at its meeting on February 14. The independent appraisal is consistent with standard methods used by State Lands as well as the method used by Newport Beach in 2016 when it set rates for all other private uses of the tidelands, including marinas, restaurants, homeowner associations and others, for securing and docking boats. The City's 2016 appraisal covering all other uses is known as the George Hamiton Jones Appraisal and can be found in the link shown in the attached CBRE appraisal. We urge each of you to review the attached CBRE appraisal.

We also ask that each of you review again the NMA position paper previously sent to you which specifically points out major flaws and 13-218

misstatements in the Harbor Commission's solicited appraisal. Just one obvious example of the flaws in the Netzer Appraisal was that it compared rates in other harbors that offer moorings together with dinghy docks for access to moorings, to Newport Beach, which provides moorings only, with no dedicated dinghy docks for access to the moorings. Having made that comparison, the Netzer appraisal then fails to account for the $500 to $700 per month cost of obtaining dock space in Newport Beach for a dinghy or tender available 24/7, to enable mooring permittees access to their offshore mooring. The rates set by the other harbors are for two things (mooring and dinghy dock) - not only one thing (mooring).

In addition to major concerns about the solicited and wildly inaccurate Netzer appraisal we believe that both the current rates, and obviously any significant increase in rates, discriminate against persons with moorings. This appears obvious to anyone when comparing what Newport Beach charges for all other uses of the harbor compared to rates charged to people with moorings, both historically and now what is being considered.

Attached is also a LINK to the February 14, 2024, Harbor Commission meeting where mooring holders presented facts showing a clear pattern of discrimination against persons with moorings, as well as facts showing why the Netzer appraisal is wildly inaccurate and unreliable. We urge each of you to take the time to watch and listen to these concerns and consider the facts firsthand.

As mentioned, the current rates are approximately at market rates, particularly given the lack of real meaningful access to our moorings. As such, any significant increase is really a disguised tax on boaters and boating in Newport Harbor. We urge each of you to stand with us and Stop the Boat Tax and Stop the Discrimination against persons with moorings.

Respectfully,
The Newport Mooring Association,
Board of Directors
P.S. At the conclusion of the discussion on February 14, the Harbor Commission Chair suggested they were open to meeting representatives of the NIVIA to explore common ground. Two days later, we reached out to the Chair to set up a meeting. We now await a date and time and look forward to meeting with a few representative members of the Commission well ahead of 13-219

the next Harbor Commission in an effort to collaborate on a potential viable solution.

Attachments and Links:
2024 CBRE Independent Appraisal of Offshore Mooring Rates in Newport Harbor
Video of February 14, 2024 Harbor Commission Meeting regarding Offshore Mooring Rates - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls3fzmtKRDI NMA position paper regarding Netzer Appraisal and Discrimination in Rates 13-220

CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES

APPRAISAL
REPORT

NEWPORT HARBOR OFFSHORE MOORING FIELDS -

TIDELANDS FAIR USE FEES

NEWPORT HARBOR
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92662
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.

CBRE
13-221

VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES
CBRE
February 12, 2024
Mr. L. Scott Karlin
Policy and Legal Affairs on behalf of Newport Mooring Association, Inc.

NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION, INC.

P.O. Box 1118
Newport Beach, California 92659
RE: Appraisal of: Newport Harbor Offshore Mooring Fields - Tidelands Fair Use Fees Newport Harbor, Newport Beach, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Karlin:

At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the market rental value of the referenced property. Our analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report.

The subject property consists of the State-owned State of California Tidelands submerged in Newport Harbor that are currently utilized to accommodate individual offshore moorings. The Tidelands are currently held in Trust by the City of Newport Beach. There are approximately 740 offshore moorings, approximately 579 of which are In mooring fields A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J and K, and which excludes approximately 79 moorings in the Balboa Yacht Club mooring field and 73 moorings in the Newport Harbor Yacht Club mooring field which are not administrated by the City. The Harbor Patrol also has 6 moorings.

Although requested, updated precise sourced detailed information including the exact number of moorings, intended boat length for each mooring, and the amount of tidelands encumbered or utilized within each mooring field for use by individual moorings was not available. We have estimated / filled in any missing data and figures based on available information including mooring area maps, 6 years of detailed mooring transfer logs, Landvision aerial measuring tool, and calculations based on typical vessel sizes and mooring equipment. From these resources we have estimated 579 moorings in 9 mooring fields ranging from 18 moorings to 133 moorings, with average intended boat lengths ranging from 40' to 50' and average beam (width) of 15 feet, each of which is extended on average 12 feet from the boat to the buoy at the bow, and 12 feet from the stern to the stern buoy. In the case of mooring using only one buoy, the extra area at the stern would not be added. The mooring fields within which the individual moorings are located comprise lust over 82 acres of tidelands. Note that we independently estimated the area of the mooring fields with an aerial measuring tool which indicated actual mooring fields of around 73 acres; however, the Harbor Depa rtment-provided -data was relied upon for the purposes of the appraisal, despite being unsourced. The areas within the mooring fields outside the areas occupied by, or which could be occupied by a vessel on the individual moorings is not an area used exclusively by the owners of vessels on the individual moorings.

These areas are generally used by the public inclusive of kayakers, paddle boarders, small craft (9 2024 CBRE, Inc.
13-222

Mr. L. Scott Karlin
February 12, 2024