From: Ad lever
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comment - City Council Meeting 04-28-2026 Date: April 24, 2026 3:07:39 PM
Attachments: Minute Transcription - Partial w slides - City Council Meeting 04-14-2026.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.
Hello,
Please incorporate these materials into the agenda for the meeting of 04/28/2026, associated with the minutes of the 04/14/2026 Council meeting.
Thank you,
Adam
April 28, 2026
Agenda Item No. 1
Meeting Minutes - 04/14/2026 City Council Meeting – Partial Transcription Public Comment & Slides– Non-agenda Items:
https://newportbeach.granicus.com/player/clip/4607?view_id=44&redirect=true (Starting at approximately 11:14 on the timeline)
Adam Leverenz: Couple slides, Clerk please, page one. Um, the first thing on the top of this slide, is an agenda item from a Harbor Commission Meeting in March.
And it was a proposed elimination of mooring length adjustment processes. Now if an individual has say, a 35’ mooring, and looks at a 36’ boat, they can apply to the Harbormaster, and he’ll come out and do an analysis and see if they can be granted an extension, typically coming in 5’ increments. I think the fee for that is about $500 if it’s granted, and no charge if it’s not granted. Um, the Chair of the Harbor Commission, during that March meeting, the top, above the top black bar, is the way the minutes are reflected from that meeting, and it notes that he summarized prior concerns including navigational safety, limited Harbor capacity, public access, impacts, fairness among permit holders, and administrative burden.
Having been at the meeting, that wasn’t entirely reflective of what I thought it should be, and the next section of the page is transcribed from the video of that meeting, and Chair Beer said quote, “Newport Harbor is a fully built out Harbor.
There is no additional water area to expand into. So increasing mooring lengths effectively reallocates limited public water space to individual permittees. Longer mooring increases navigational risk. Public access to the Harbor is declining.
Expanded moorings exponentially reduce available water area for other harbor users, including kayaks, paddleboarders, rowing shells, and other human powered craft. Incremental expansions create long-term crowding. Granting length increases to some permittees effectively grants additional public water space that is not available to others.” Close quote.
Members of the public then noted that while those same statements should apply to Residential Pier expansions. And the minutes reflected that Chair Beer closed public comments, and clarified that piers are governed by established project lines, and noted that moorings present different regulatory challenges.
Next page please. I walked into the Harbor Commission meeting last week, and Chair Beer appeared not to like me quoting directly what he said, so he’d submitted additional copy of minutes. Humorously, you’ll notice that they’re called “Daft minutes”. I think that’s somewhat appropriate.
Having watched the video more than half a dozen times, the only word that Chair Beer had said, that wasn’t in the minutes, is pierhead, in green. Those sections in red, were not said.
I think it problematic, that the Chair of the Harbor Commission, is submitting things into the public record, that may reflect what he wanted to say, but he did not say during the meeting. And this is why, we have the problems in the Tidelands we do now. I’ve been encouraging you, to listen to people other than the Harbor Commission, and I hope this an example of that. And if you can go ta slide 5.
Most concerning, this is a dock at a Harbor, former Harbor Chairs neighborhood.
While they continue to assault the moorings, in all manner of ways, docks at Harbor Commissioner’s neighborhoods extend not only beyond the pierhead line, the Federally designated limit. They extend beyond the Project Line, which is where the Army Corps is supposed to be able to dredge to. And just the hypocrisy and entitlement is problematic, and I hope we can move beyond that. Thank you.
“Chair Beer introduced Item 6.3 regarding the discussion of eliminating the mooring length adjustment process in Title 17. He summarized prior concerns, including navigational safety, limited harbor capacity, public access impacts, fairness among permit holders, and administrative burden.”
Transcribed from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vm8VW77LvQ (Subject matter starting at 18:46 approx.)
Harbor Commission Chair Ira Beer: “Newport Harbor is a fully built out Harbor. There is no additional water area to expand into, so increasing mooring lengths effectively reallocates limited public water-space to individual permitees.
Longer mooring increases navigational risk… Public access to the Harbor is declining. Expanded moorings exponentially reduce available water area for other Harbor users, including kayaks, paddleboarders, rowing shells and other human powered craft. Incremental expansions create long-term crowding... Granting length increases to some Permitees, effectively grants additional public water-space that is not available to others.”
Public Comment then noted that under the conditions stated by Chair Beer, the same fairness arguments applied to residential pier extensions, which continue to be approved. Concern was expressed over inconsistent enforcement.
Equal treatment of permit holders was urged.
“Chair Beer closed public comments. Chair Beer clarified that private piers are governed by established project lines and noted that moorings present different regulatory considerations.” (1
(2
Federally Designated Lines, and Newport Harbor:
(3
(4
(5