From: Ad lever
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Fw: 02/10/2026 Meeting - Public Comment - Consent #8 Date: February 07, 2026 9:49:09 AM
Attachments: Letter- Public Comment - City Council 02-10-2026 Consent Agenda Item 8 - Kleiman.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
From: Ad lever <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 9:47 AM
To: Kleiman, Lauren <[email protected]>
Subject: 02/10/2026 Meeting - Public Comment - Consent #8 Please find that attached.
February 6, 2026
Good day Mayor Kleiman,
Re: City Council Meeting of Feb. 10, 2026, Agenda Item #8 Attached, please find materials taken from the website of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), for their December 16, 2025 Agenda Item #105, as is identified below.
These documents start on, or about page 494 on the CSLC website, running to on, or about to page 508:
It is intended that these will aid the City in addressing the many matters related to the February 10, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #8:
Thank you,
Adam Leverenz
February 10, 2026
Agenda Item No. 8
February 6, 2026
Good day Mayor Kleiman,
Re: City Council Meeting of Feb. 10, 2026, Agenda Item #8
Attached, please find materials taken from the website of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), for their December 16, 2025 Agenda Item #105, as is identified below. These documents start on, or about page 494 on the CSLC website, running to on, or about to page 508:
It is intended that these will aid the City in addressing the many matters related to the February 10, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #8:
Thank you,
1 Draft Newport Beach Mooring Management/Settlement
Proposal - 10/30/2025:
This document incorporates thoughts and suggestions gathered from hundreds of mooring permit holders in Newport Beach, past and present, many of whom, having indicated in various ways that they are too fearful of City retaliation to speak on their own behalf. This comes from the fact that the City has Codified numerous methods in which it may revoke/confiscate mooring permits, and has exhibited a clear desire and intent to take them all, for conversion into “short-term”, “City owned”, high-cost mooring licenses, those assessed at rates more than 1,300% higher than current California State Lands Commission Benchmark rates for moorings in Orange County, and much higher than rates for many of the other Tidelands users the City favors, and also issues permits to. For simplicity, this is crafted in the form of a Resolution. In instances where Resolutions are not proper process, it’s intended that the points here made, which are supported by the record for these matters, motivate fairness, and consideration of recommendations/ alternatives that do not risk depriving many who are socio-economically disadvantaged, or non-residents, of opportunity to have and maintain coastal boating access in, and from Newport Beach, California.
Draft Newport Beach Mooring Management/Settlement Proposal text:
In order that Mooring Permit holders receive no less than equal footing as compared to other Tidelands users in Newport Beach; and considering that mooring fields and areas offer a lower tier form of boat berthing; and considering that they have been charged substantially more by the City in fees/rents than other Tidelands Permittees over at least the past decade for that lower tier access; and that in consideration of their lower impact form of coastal access; and that they have also been subjected to much higher levels of monitoring and regulation by the City, while at the same time other Permittees have seen very favorable City rates, lax or non-existent regulation, and have been the recipients of free boat berthing over public lands, also for at least the past decade, the following steps are offered as solution/ Resolution/mitigation/making parties whole/Etc. for many of the past wrongs:
2 Whereas, the City of Newport Beach has been entrusted by the State of California with the management of designated Granted Sovereign Tide and Submerged Lands in compliance with the Beacon Bay Bill; the State Constitution; and the Public Trust Doctrine;
Whereas, the City of Newport Beach has managed those lands in such a way, as to in the words of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), create “rate discrepancies” and rate “disparities” which are “really appalling”; Whereas, the record reflects that the City has knowingly and willfully gone against CSLC policy, and managed Trust lands in such a way as to “gift” Residential Pier Permit holders the space their vessels occupy over State land for at least a decade;
Whereas, the City of Newport Beach has exercised a generally lax or non-existent enforcement policy related to imposition of the City’s Small Commercial Marina rate on the many Residential Pier Permitholders who sublet space at their piers/dock to others though real estate agents; websites; posting of signage; and other means;
Whereas, various aspects of the City’s unique Tidelands management style of fee free boat berthing and non-enforcement of sublet fees/rent at Residential Piers over at least the past 10 years, has resulted in a substantial loss of revenue to the Tidelands fund, running into the millions of dollars; Whereas, a number of City of Newport Beach Decision and Policy- makers have berthed vessels over those fee free State lands while being Decision and Policymakers;
Whereas, City of Newport Beach Decision/Policymakers were advised by the CSLC in a letter dated April 9, 2024, that: “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.”
Whereas, City of Newport Beach Decision/Policy makers were advised by the California Coastal Commission in a letter dated July 9, 2024, that:
”Commission staff recommend that the City analyze the fair market rent rate for private slips and develop a proposal to simultaneously implement the updated rental rates for both moorings and private slips to resolve this discrepancy and ensure equitable access to recreational boating activities in Newport Harbor.”
3 Whereas, having received those letters, City of Newport Beach Decision and Policymakers at a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of July 9, 2024, did advocate and vote to increase fees for Moorings by hundreds of percentages; to confiscate the Mooring Permits; to phase out Liveaboards; Whereas, these things, and the associated imposition through Code of a 25 day Mooring vacancy = forfeiture provision, all severely reduce Coastal access, primarily for visitors and less affluent non-residents; Whereas, Newport Beach Decision/Policymakers at that same July 9, 2024 meeting, voted to raise residential Pier fees by pennies per square foot per year;
Whereas, State Lands observed in its “DRAFT Report on the City of Newport Beach’s Public Trust Lands Management” of August 2025, that:
“The City appears to have treated its residential pier lessees, who are necessarily City residents, more favorably than its mooring permit holders.”;
Whereas, City of Newport Beach Financial reports indicate that in FY 2023-2024, revenue from Mooring fees brought in approximately $1.9 Million Dollars in revenue;
Whereas, Newport Harbormaster Paul Blank, in his Harbormaster Update to the Harbor Commission of July 9. 2025, revealed that Mooring Management cost the City approximately $316,000;
Whereas, City of Newport Beach Harbormaster Paul Blank stated during his Harbormaster Update to the Harbor Commission on September 10, 2025, that he’d received “a direct request by two sitting City Council people, asking me specifically, to find more revenue, for the Department. So we did.”;
Whereas, the City profiting greatly off of Mooring Permittees, while consistently returning little value to them, has contributed to extreme levels of inequity and discrimination for these specific Tidelands users; Whereas, the CSLC has stated that it has the expertise and experience to set rates for the use of State Lands, and does so approximately every five years through “Benchmarks” for lands under CSLC management in Orange County;
4 Whereas, in these processes, the CSLC uses Newport Beach data in the formulation of the applicable Benchmark Rates for mooring buoys; Whereas, in contrast, the City of Newport Beach has created/endorsed a rate scheme which charges the highest rates to the lowest tier, most heavily regulated and oppressed users of State Tide/Submerged Lands; Whereas, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) Harbor Patrols costs for management in 2016 were approximately $360,000, as stated by the City’s Harbormaster at a meeting of July 9, 2025; Whereas, the OCSD Harbor Patrol has maintained a 24/7/365 presence in the Harbor since approximately 1972, and has extensive experience in Mooring management; marine firefighting; search/rescue; a dive team; and a far higher level of training and experience than the City of Newport Beach Harbor Department;
Whereas, the OCSD Harbor Patrol additionally uses more appropriately sized, outfitted, and capable boats in fulfilling their Harbor related duties; Whereas, Mooring Field G in Newport Harbor has remained under County control, even after the City of Newport Beach created its Harbor Department, and took over “managing” other Mooring Fields; Whereas, the Orange County Sheriff, in a letter dated July 13, 2021 (Hereto attached with 07/14/2021 Orange County LAFCO Minutes, re:
Agenda Item 9b), appears to question the costs, benefits, and usefulness of a City motivated study related to a desire for City duplication of an existing government funded Harbor enforcement agency;
Whereas, Mooring Permit Holders are likely to be willing to continue to pay the fees they pay now, higher than most all other Tidelands users in Newport, if those fees actually assure that they receive more equitable Tidelands management and services than the City’s vastly oppressive and discriminatory Tidelands management model has provided; Whereas, Mooring Permits also provide diverse members of the public opportunity to have 24/7/365 Coastal access at an affordable price, through a highly regulated add-on Live-aboard Permit option;
Whereas, the Live-aboard Permit option allows numerous persons in maritime industries to be in close proximity to their work, providing various goods and services to other mariners, residents, visitors, etc.; 5 Whereas, these Live-aboard Permits offer virtually the last form of affordable housing on the Southern California coast, and are only issued to vessels that have been mandated to be, and are annually inspected to assure that they are “Safe. Seaworthy. And Operable”;
Whereas, boating access is the primary use, and housing is a secondary/accessory use, and considering the severity of the housing crisis, City efforts to eliminate an affordable housing opportunity, wherein there are no construction costs; no cost to run utilities; the spaces are already occupied by vessels; the people to be housed provide their own housing, and pay rent for the occupation of public lands, etc., etc., the City’s efforts are illogical/ counterintuitive/counterproductive/counter to the State’s best interests; Whereas, the City does not require that the many boats on Residential Piers be inspected to be “Safe. Seaworthy, and operable”; or be registered; or be insured; or have their marine sanitation systems tested for leaks;
Now, Therefore, ___________________________ resolves as follows:
Section 1: The State Lands Commission, in relation to public lands granted to the City of Newport Beach, shall “institute a formal inquiry to determine that the terms and conditions of this act, and amendments thereto, have been complied with in good faith” for all Tide/Submerged Lands granted; Section 1a: The State Lands Commission shall then hold a publicly noticed hearing “at which the city has been given an opportunity to express fully any disagreement with the Commission’s findings or to describe any extenuating circumstances causing the violation”;
Section 1b: In the event of finding(s) of breach of fiduciary duties, and/or discrimination, and/or other City sanctioned/Codified/implicit improprieties in management between Tidelands users by the City of Newport Beach, the Commission shall formally request the Attorney General to bring litigation against the City to resolve any and all grant violations; Section 1c: The State Lands Commission, having determined that “any “transaction or condition” is “in probable conflict with this act [the grant statute] or with any other provision of law,” shall furthermore “report to the 6 Legislature, which may direct the Attorney General to bring litigation to revoke the grant or compel compliance.”;
Section 1d: The State Lands Commission shall also “recommend to the Legislature such amendments as it may determine to be necessary in the terms and conditions of this act”;
Section 2: The California State Lands Commission, with Legislative action if required, shall thereafter directly assume Tide/Submerged Lands management authority from the City of Newport Beach, over those State- owned places where Mooring Fields and Shore Moorings are located; Section 2a: The California State Lands Commission shall then, going forward, apply the same methodologies for the rate setting of Category 1 Benchmarks in Newport Beach, which are generally applied to private docks, piers, and buoys, and as are routinely outlined and used by the Commission for Orange County, and other areas of the State, i.e.:
“…based on one or more of the following methods, including, but not limited to:
9 percent of the appraised value of the leased land.
A percentage of annual gross income, where the percentage is based on an analysis of the market for like uses and other relevant factors.
A comparison of rents for other similar land or facilities.
Benchmarks for regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, with benchmark rental rates to be based on analysis of similar or substitute facilities in the local area.
Other such methods or information that are based on commonly accepted appraisal practices and principles; and for leases for recreational piers or buoys, rent shall be based on local conditions and local fair annual rental values. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003; Pub.
Resources Code, §§ 6503, 6503.5.)
The Commission may consider the amount of rent the State would receive under various rental methods, and whether relevant, reliable, 7 and comparable data are available concerning the value of the leased land in determining which rent method should apply. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (d)(1), (2).)
PUBLIC TRUST AND STATE’S BEST INTERESTS:
Benchmarks are used to establish uniform rental rates in specific geographic regions with large concentrations of similar facilities, mostly private recreational improvements within the Commission’s jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 2003, subd. (a)(5).) The use of benchmarks improves consistency, transparency, and efficiency in how the Commission establishes rent for large numbers of similar leases, saving time, resources, and money for both the applicant and the State. Periodic benchmark adjustments ensure that the people of the State are fairly compensated according to current market rates for the private use of State-owned land, consistent with the California Constitution. Generally, staff recommend updates to the benchmarks every 5 years. The Commission’s current benchmarks and benchmark map may be found at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-
permits/benchmarks/.”
Section 3: The approximately $1.9 million of revenue generated annually from Mooring management in Newport, shall be vested with the State Lands Commission, and shall be used to fund State level Staff for any required management and Permit processing needs at that level; Section 3a: The monies shall be further used to restore local Mooring management authority to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Harbor Patrol Division;
Section 4: Upon the date of the City’s annual renewal for each Onshore and Offshore Mooring Permit, the State Lands Commission, as is policy for other similar Permits issued through the State for the lease of other State land for waters it oversees, from the near to Newport Harbor Huntington Harbor, and the more distant Lake Tahoe on the California side, shall reissue Mooring Permits for 10-years, with renewal opportunity in 10-year increments, up to 50 years total, as is for many other Tidelands permit holders of similar permits Statewide;
8 Section 4a: In the alternative, the State Lands Commission on a date certain, may extend all Mooring Permits in Newport Harbor in unison for 10- year term increments, with opportunity for renewal in subsequent 10-year increments, up to 50 years total, as is common for many other Tidelands permit holders of similar permits Statewide;
Section 4b: Mooring Permit holders in Newport Beach shall no longer be discriminated against relating to terms and fees, and shall be provided rights, including that of permit transferability, as are other Tidelands permit holders in Newport Beach, and other locations Statewide; Section 5: At the discretion of the State Lands Commission and/or State Legislature, The City of Newport Beach may retain management of the portion of Tidelands encumbered/impacted by the Residential and Commercial Piers and Docks. This offering the City the choice of whether or not they wish to begin actually assessing fees/rents for the “impact area” of these places, and start imposing the Code required Residential Pier sublet rates to support the continuation of the City’s lower-level, duplication of services provided by the Orange County Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol.
Section 6: Should the City of Newport Beach, now, or in the future, be permitted to act as Trustee over any portion of Tide/Submerged lands, it shall no longer allow Decision and Policymakers to participate in decision and policymaking, when these things do, or may directly benefit them, financially or otherwise.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 202___.
ATTEST
_____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
From: David Hahn
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public comment consent agenda #8 - 02/10/2026".
Date: February 07, 2026 2:37:59 PM
Attachments: Stu News Letter to the Editor - -.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Dave Hahn
YZ Yacht Sales
949-706-4369
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Hahn <[email protected]>
Date: February 7, 2026 at 1:46:04 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Public comment consent agenda #8 - 02/10/2026".
Dave Hahn
YZ Yacht Sales
949-706-4369
From: Admin
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comment- Resolution No. 2026-12
Date: February 09, 2026 3:05:31 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
Mayor Kleiman, and Members of Council,
Thank you for an opportunity to provide public comment on proposed Resolution No. 2026-12, to establish a Public Lands Trust Management Ad Hoc Committee to review and develop recommendations in response to the California State Lands Commission’s report on the City’s management of the tidelands.
We understand that the Ad-Hoc Committee would determine how and when stakeholders are engaged in this process. However, given the number and diversity of stakeholder groups to be impacted—and the concerns raised in the State Lands Commission staff report regarding equitable treatment and transparency—the Board of the Newport Mooring Association respectfully urges the Council to expand the committee’s composition.
We suggest inclusion of stakeholder representatives from each category of tidelands users that could potentially be impacted, including a resident mooring permit holder, a non-resident mooring permit holder, a yacht club–affiliated mooring permit holder, and at least one residential pier permit holder. Consistent with the State Lands Commission’s emphasis on transparency, equity across user groups, and clearly documented decision-making in the administration of Public Trust lands, we further recommend that these representatives be selected through an open and transparent process, or nominated by their respective user groups, rather than appointed solely at the discretion of the City. Including these regular, everyday perspectives would help ensure that the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations are well-documented, balanced across user groups, and aligned with the City’s obligations as trustee of the State’s tidelands.
Such representation would also help address and avoid the perception of “politically motivated” decision-making referenced in the State Lands Commission staff report, and would strengthen public confidence in the committee’s work and outcomes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Newport Mooring Association