HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Amending Sections 17.60.010 (Public Trust Lands - General), 17.60.020 (Application for Pier/Mooring Permits or the Lease of Public Trust Lands), 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits), and 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring Licenses) - State Lands CommissionReceived After Agenda Printed
July 23, 2024
Agenda Item No. 3
Subject: FW: Changes to Mooring Fees
Attachments: Mooring Transfer History.xlsx
From: Jamshed Dastur <jhdastur@aol.com>
Sent: July 17, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Stewards of the Harbor <stewardsoftheharbor-info@210680278.mailchimpapp.com>; Newport Mooring Association
<mail@newportmooringassociation.org>
Subject: Changes to Mooring Fees
Mayor O'Neill and City Council Members:
It feels like I am flogging a dead horse; however I will give it one more try. I am hoping that there
might be a few more Council Members that will join Council Member Weigand and allow further time
to fully vet the proposal hastily passed at the last meeting. It certainly has merits; however the
unintended consequences of this decision, could be the exact opposite of what is being desired by
the City.
Here is one example, using some very rough but credible numbers. The attached Mooring Transfer
History data was gleaned from the Harbor Department web site. The average number of market sales
of moorings over the last 7 1 /2 years was 54 per year, and the maximum in any year was 83. It is
unclear if the proposed change in transferability policy will increase or decrease the annual market
sales over the next 4 years. However, let us assume that it would increase to 100 per year, a rosy
scenario of twice the current average. Then, at the end of the 4 year transition period, and for many
many years thereafter, there would be about 1000 moorings paying low "grand -fathered" rates and
about 400 moorings paying the highly inflated rates. At some stage in the not too distant future, there
will again be pressure on the City, to collect market rates from all mooring users. Those enjoying
"grand -fathered" rates will be told that the City's hands are tied by State regulations and that the 2024
City Council erred when it promised something exceeding its authority.
Under the current proposal, over 1000 moorings would not be available to new users for decades,
being classified as legacy moorings. The other 400 moorings would be available only to those with
deep pockets. I do not believe that this outcome is desired by anyone on the City Council.
This City's proposal is based on a flawed premise that the City Council has the authority to grant
millions of dollars worth of legacy rights, spanning decades. Besides, it achieves a result that is
contrary to its stated goal of fairness in future mooring availability.
I respectfully appeal to the City Council to withdraw this proposal for final approval at the next
meeting.
Sincerely
Jamshed Dastur
949-887-1938
TRANSFER HISTORY
YEAR
MARKET SALE
FAMILY TRANSFERS
TOTAL TRANSFERS
2017
30
19
49
2018
39
16
55
2019
41
17
58
2020
63
24
87
2021
83
46
129
2022
68
49
117
2023
56
31
87
2024 thru end of June
27
9
36
TOTAL
407
211
618
7 1/2 YEAR Average
54
28
82
From: Ad lever
To: Stapleton. Joe; Avery, Brad: Weigand. Erik; Grant. Robyn; Blom, Noah: Kleiman. Lauren; O"Neill. William; Deot -
COU Council; City Cleric"s Office
Subject: Public Comment - 07/23/2024 - Consent Agenda Item 3
Date: July 21, 2024 1:45:57 PM
Attachments: Public Comment 07-23-2024-merged-oompressed.pdf.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good day all, please find that attached.
Thank you.
Adam
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
July 21, 2024
Sent via e-mail to:
jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov;
ewe i_gand@newportbeachca.gov; rgrant@newportbeachca.gov;
nblom@newportbeachca.gov; Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov; cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov;
woneill@newportbeachca.gov; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
Re: July 23, 2024 Council Meeting CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3. Ordinance
No. 2024-15, Amending Sections 17.60.010 (Public Trust Lands - General),
17.60.020 (Application for Pier/Mooring Permits or the Lease of Public Trust
Lands), 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits), and 17.60.045 (Short -Term Mooring
Licenses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Mooring Permits and
Licenses.
Dear Mayor and Council,
apologize for some of what I write below being repetitive, but with more recent
information becoming available, and the City having morphed what was
anticipated to be a proposal to further increase the existing rate disparity between
Moorings and Residential Piers/Docks, into something more far flung, I'm left
feeling that perhaps I have previously failed to well articulate some of my remarks.
Also, the total here, is a sum of the parts. I pose that an awareness of those many
parts, and the resultant cumulative adverse impacts on low-cost/affordable
Harbor/Coastal boating access, put into context a more complete picture of what
has occurred, how it has occurred, and some of the parties involved.
The City's "Alternative Recommendation" for Moorings, which received 6-1
Mayoral/Council endorsement on July 9, raises a number of significant issues.
The "Alternative" was first publicly noticed on Friday July 5t", 2024, over a major
holiday weekend, which set records for numbers of people travelling away from
home. The plan itself, requires some level of analysis. To have had the extreme
changes/proposals not come through the customary channel of the Newport
Beach Harbor Commission, deprived interested parties and stakeholders, of the
customary opportunity to study, and comment. It is quite disheartening, to have
had such substantive proposals pop out of nowhere, on such short notice, over a
holiday.
Remarks at the July 9 Council Meeting, were perceived to indicate that some
Councilmembers and Harbor Commissioners may have collaborated on the
"Alternative", outside of public scrutiny. Before you act, you must determine that
instances of "Spoke -and -wheel" or "Walking Quorum" have not here occurred.
The "Alternative" actualizes all of the apparent objectives/changes the City
desires, but poses stretching them out over a period of time. Over time, all
Mooring Permits will transition into City held "Mooring Licenses". This will result in
the complete deprivation from members of the general public, an ability to obtain
"Mooring Permits". Also over time, all moorings will be subject to the excessive
price increases the City favors (300 to over 500%). These high prices will then be
compounded annually, by removal of the predictable CPI based rent/fee
adjustments that Permit holders have become accustomed to, and which the City
continues to use in adjustments for other types of rents/fees. Generations of
future boaters, will then be economically excluded, and the City of Newport Beach
Local Coastal Program — Coastal Land Use Plan's stated intent to "Continue to
provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of
low-cost public access to the water and harbor", will fail.
Overtime, all Live -aboard Permits will cease to exist (Live-aboards are not
permissible under City Mooring Licenses). I do not feel that the City should take
away the last affordable method I'm aware of, for persons of lesser means to
live/work in Newport Beach. Nor should the City do anything to contribute to the
homeless crisis. Newport Beach entering into agreement to ship its homeless out
to Costa Mesa, does not mitigate. I feel that given how strictly the City now
manages/monitors Live-aboards, the ending of a California boating tradition of
over 100 years, is not necessary.
Overtime, the security recreational/commercial-fishing/marine services/etc./etc.
boat owners/operators have, will be erased by converting all Mooring Permits to
Licenses. Permits run for years, Licenses run month to month. The eventuality of
having to deal with where to locate a large boat, on short notice, is a horrible thing
to experience.
The City has long desired more control, over more permits. There have been
discussions in the past, about the City setting aside funds to purchase permits.
Based upon the Mooring Permit Transfer Log for calendar year 2024, through
"3.25.24", seven Mooring Permits in desirable lengths, could have been obtained
for less than the cost of the new electric Harbor Department Patrol boat on order.
The fact that the City hopes to Codify an ability to revoke/impound/confiscate
Permits at no cost instead, does not make doing so "right" or "just".
The City likewise, could have been reducing issues related to "Permit
Transferability" for years, by purchasing Permits as they became available.
Permits are regularly available. The City did substantially increase the cut it
receives through Transfer Fees. That specific income should have been applied
to increasing the City's inventory of Permits. The fact that Permits have come to
have an associated value, does not make members of the public holding Permits
guilty of something. I had to save and plan for years to be able to acquire a
Mooring Permit. The fact that doing so can pose difficulty, does not mean that the
process is fatally flawed. Everyone who wants a Bentley, can't afford one.
Everyone who wants a government Permit to operate a Radio or T.V. station can't
afford one. Everyone who wants to harvest/extract natural resources from public
lands (Oil and gas/Timber/Mineral/Etc.), cannot afford a Permit to do so. The fact
that everyone who wants a Mooring Permit, cannot immediately afford one, is
consistent, and logical.
It seems that some City actors look at asking prices for Mooring Permits, and
errantly conclude that any amount identified, is 100% profit. This could not be
further from the truth. I have been keeping a close eye on, and studying Mooring
Permits in Newport for over 15 years. I have found, that when the maintenance
costs, rent, and other expenses and difficulties are factored in, there is typically
little financial gain in Transferring Permits. Councilman Avery, at the meeting of
July 9, indicated that he profited from the Transfer of two Mooring Permits. To
establish context though, it must be disclosed what level of capital gain occurred?
Historical policy making decisions are a primary contributing factor to Permits
having come to have some associated value (Discussed in more detail below).
Policy created this, and policy to remedy it, should not subject innocent parties to
extreme loss through potential Eminent domain/Inverse condemnation/Municipal
theft/Constitutional due process taking violations/Etc.
What the City has referred to as "Grandfathering" rates for Mooring Permit
Holders as of a date certain, is not actually provided for. Mayor and Council
stated during the July 9 Meeting, that future Mayors and Councils could change
pricing. Moreover, this Mayor, Council, and Harbormaster, have done 180-degree
reversals on previous assurances they've made to stakeholders. Permit holders,
at present, have no security as far as future rates/fees. Important to acknowledge
too, is that a discriminatory and unfair rate (Moorings @ $1.34 per sq. ft. per yr.
vs. Residential Piers/Docks, not including vessels @ .57 cents per sq. ft. per yr. ),
paid over the unsubstantiated promise of a Permittee's life -time, or until Mayor
and Council change their minds, remains a discriminatory and unfair rate.
The City seems to be ignoring the fact that The California State Lands
Commission (Hereafter "SLU), calculates annual rental rates for the lease of
State tide and submerged lands approximately every 5 years, the last time being
about two years ago, in June of 2022. Their current Category 1 Benchmark rate
for Southern California, is .451 cents per square foot per year. Newport Beach
data was used in determining that rate. Associated SLC Staff Report 39, for
purposes of comparing commercial marinas to buoys/mooring poles states:
"These facilities offer many of the same amenities as a commercial marina,
such as a place for the docking and mooring of boats and the loading and
unloading of passengers and equipment".
Again, SLC Staff Report 39 uses the words "fair"; "equitable"; "reasonable";
"consistent"; and "appropriate", to describe their current Benchmark rate. This
means that the current rate of .451 cents per square foot per year, is what the
State, with vast levels of knowledge and experience in such things, has
determined to be "fair" here. The formula The State used to set that rate, has been
clearly outlined. It's not rocket science.
Moorings in Newport Harbor, are clearly lacking in the amenities of docking, and
the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. A lack of onshore
parking, access to utilities and services, and dinghy/tender storage have also
been cited as impediments Mooring Permitees face here. Over all, Residential
Pier Permits have a much greater level of utility and value, yet pay less in fees.
And while Mooring Permittees are prohibited by Code from subletting their
Mooring Permits, Residential Pier Permittees are allowed to sublet their dock
space, often at substantial financial gain. Little of this goes into the Tidelands
Fund, other than the fee calculated over the actual physical footprint of the
pier/dock. Fees not being assessed by the City, on the space the many vessels
there occupy, to some, appears to constitute theft from the Tidelands Fund. And
interestingly, the City Codified that it may sublet permitted moorings, with the City
keeping all of the proceeds. Mooring Permitees are also required to add The City
as insureds to their vessel policies, providing the City millions of dollars of free
coverage. Apparently, Residential Pier Permittees are exempted from this
standard. The City's Mooring vs. Pier/Dock discrimination, extends far beyond just
pricing. And still, with the various challenges faced by Mooring Permitees, and a
much higher level of imposed City restriction, this group currently pays more in
rent/fee amounts, and over a broader calculated area.
The City of Newport Beach's Fee Schedule, dictates that Residential Piers, aka
docks over State owned, City managed tide/submerged lands adjacent to
residential properties, incur annual rental fees of .57 cents per square foot per
year. Various City Resolutions setting past and present fees for these Residential
Pier Permits in Newport, for use of the same lands as Mooring Permitees,
describe those rates as "fair market value rent". That being the case, The City's
current Residential Pier Permit rate, must be considered to be fair.
Information is also readily available, indicating that Offshore Mooring rents/fees in
Newport Beach, are presently higher, sometimes significantly so, than those in
other areas of the State. (Attachment A)
As you well know, Residential Pier Permit fees were before you on July 9th
(Attachment B). In spite of The SLC noting in April, that it's an "opportune" time
to address "significant" rate disparity, and in spite of the Coastal Commission on
July 9, recommending that the City "develop a proposal to simultaneously
implement the updated rates for both moorings and private slips to resolve
this discrepancy", you voted to increase the Residential Pier Permit rate/fee by
an insignificant 1 to 2 cents per square foot per year, while at the very same
meeting, voted to increase the already higher mooring fees, by hundreds of
percentages. These actions, in tandem, assured that your peers, Harbor
Commissioners, Electeds, and others, for the space their piers/docks/boats
encumber over granted sovereign lands, will continue to be assessed much lower
fees on their docks, and no fees at all on their boats. How can Mayor and Council
conclude that fee free boat storage at these spaces, even if it is for your peers, is
not an unconstitutional gift?
And as I think each of you also know, a 2024 Appraisal Report from highly
regarded firm CBRE, determined fair annual rent amounts for offshore moorings in
Newport, closely in line with what they are presently. The City commissioned
Netzer and Associates Appraisal Report of 12/26/2023 on the other hand (Again,
Holiday proximate timing), concluded that Offshore Mooring rents should increase
exponentially. Netzer's conclusions appear based on inappropriate/flawed
methodology; comparisons to dry -land real properties; for -profit Marina slips; etc.;
etc. These do not so closely compare to moorings over generally undevelopable
land/water, as is implied. Netzer materials also evidence some discrepancy about
how many offshore mooring fields, and how many public docks exist in Newport
Harbor, and contradict a 2016 determination made by the very same firm:
Mr. Netzer's January 6, 2016 Appraisal, stated:
"The Ratio analysis attempts to estimate the market rent for moorings as
compared to the rent for similar slip spaces in the same marina or harbor. As
shown in the analysis, the ratio can vary dramatically (25% to 92%) and,
while a potential renter could take this into consideration (cost of a slip v.
cost of a mooring), it is not judged to be a reliable measure of Fair Market
Rent. "
Timelines related to various Netzer Appraisal Reports, and other interactions with
The City, have also raised serious concern among many. Addressing materials
sourced from various Public Records Requests, some of which I've seen
presented at local City, and Yacht Club meetings:
The timing of Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner Scott Cunningham's e-mail
of July 22, 2020, as related to the subsequent Mooring Appraisal RFP, is quite
concerning. The RFP for the Appraisal wasn't even "Posted" by the City, until April
of the following year, and "Awarded on August 3, 2021 ", after four firms had
submitted bids. (Attachment C)
Harbor Commissioner Cunningham, seemingly knowing nearly a year in
advance, that James B. "Jim" Netzer would be the Appraiser selected, and
knowing from "two long conversations with Jim" prior to his selection, that the
resulting appraisal would deviate substantially from Mr. Netzer's January 6, 2016
Appraisal, tends towards indication of a rigged selection process, and a curated
appraisal. Commissioner Cunningham, also took it upon himself to e-mail the
chosen Appraiser online listings of Mooring Permits purportedly for sale. This
looks to me, like further effort to influence the Appraisal.
Serious concerns also arise from the fact that in April/May 2022, to alleviate any
conflict of interest, The Harbormaster had entered into an agreement with the City,
to not participate in discussions related to offshore moorings (Attachment D).
Public Records requests however, have shown multiple instances of participation
in 2023 and 2024. Are we to conclude that the City Attorney, select City staff/
personnel, The Harbormaster, et al., all simply forgot about this agreement? Or,
that the parties knowingly disregarded it? Is either scenario acceptable to you?
Although boats on shore moorings are restricted to no more than 8' wide, and 18'
long, communications indicate that Mr. Netzer tells the Harbormaster that he uses
a length of 36' long for his calculations. The Harbormaster, subsequent to having
entered into the agreement that he ""does notparticipate in discussions or the
development of recommendations related to use or financial arrangements associated
with offshore moorings", responds in kind, with likewise inflated numbers, writing
that a boat on a 40' Mooring would typically be 14' wide, and 40' long (Note: Boats
with rectangular footprints are very uncommon). The Harbormaster then opines,
that the actual square footage of Tide/Submerged lands a mooring would
encumber, could be 20' x 60', or 20' x 80'.
Other e-mails show the Harbormaster telling the Appraiser to price a 25' Mooring
at the 30' rate. Similarly, the Phase -in documents the City provided the State,
apply the rate for 20', well-appointed marina slips at the City's Balboa Yacht
Basin Marina ($32.23 per If), to 18', challenging to use, Permitted shore moorings.
An apparent pattern of basing conclusions on calculations using more space than
is actually encumbered by moored vessels, in conjunction with applying higher
fee rates to lower tier permits, unrealistically inflates the resultant prices.
Important to understand too, is that boats on moorings do not continually occupy
any such amount of space, and that other Tide/Submerged land users regularly
transition through, and use much of that supposed mooring space for their own
activities. The City, and parties holding Residential Pier/Dock Permits on the other
hand, occupy a generally fixed space, and often proclaim that the spaces they use
over public lands, are not to be used by anyone else. (Attachment E)
And in early October of 2023, Jim Netzer, acting on behalf of The Newport
Aquatic Center (Hereafter NAC), was involved in negotiating from the City, a 3 to 5
decade long, "Amended and Restarted" zero fee ground lease, for acres of
prime, waterfront sovereign land. The City generously waived its policy F-7
requirement, that full fair market value be obtained under said lease. Mr. Netzer,
along with the Harbormaster's brother, are/were Board Members of the NAC. Mr.
Netzer's family members, also have close ties with the NAC (Please refer to
"Presentation BYC Meeting 04-08-2024" previously provided).
Just a couple of weeks subsequent to this no fee lease, a Microsoft Teams
meeting, captioned "Appraisal Kick -Off Call Off -shore Moorings" was arranged.
City personnel, including the Harbormaster and Commissioner Cunningham, as
well as the Appraiser, were to participate. The timing of the no -cost lease, so
closely coinciding with the kick-off for an Appraisal Report that Harbor
Commissioner Cunningham said would quote — unquote "look much different",
along with Mr. Netzer's reversal of his 2016 position that a slip to mooring ratio is
not judged a reliable measure of Fair Market Rent, and the involvement of multiple
parties with financial interests, who thus, should not have even been involved,
raises numerous, serious concerns, quid pro quo being one. And if events in the
timeline do not rise to a level of impropriety, I think they certainly rise to the level
of the appearance of impropriety. Will Mayor and Council vote tonight, to endorse
this "the ends justify the means" pattern of conduct?
The City has also tried to use the new, and relatively untested City Mooring
License Program to rationalize extreme fee increases for these water only permits.
Under the Program though, the City maintains the mooring tackle. In contrast,
individual Mooring Permitees incur that not insignificant expense themselves. The
City has also touted the number of Mooring License applicants, as justification to
raise fees exponentially. Subsequent determination though, indicated that some
applicants were using multiple e-mail addresses to apply. Consequently, the high
numbers of applicants the City cites, are inaccurate.
40' moorings are said to be the most common. Even if the near 20 License
applications for the single 40' Mooring License the City offered, were truly
separate individuals applying, auction style pricing would be the result. The sole
30' Mooring License, suffers from the same deficiencies. Moreover, at the Harbor
Commission meeting of July 10, 2024, 1 believe the Harbormaster stated that
three 50' Licenses remain unclaimed. If there is such high demand, why are these
vacant? And even when/if they become occupied, using pricing of 16 Mooring
Licenses, to estimate what over a thousand other Moorings would fetch, is
asinine. The City's Mooring License data, cannot rationally be used to determine
"fair market rent".
Consider too, that near 100 moorings sit unoccupied in Newport Harbor on any
given day. This is due in large part, to the fact that the overnight sublet price set
by the City, pencils out to be near the cost of a fully appointed marina slip! The
City is not burdened with the expense of maintaining these vacant moorings, and
receives monthly rent for them from Permittees. Priced reasonably, they could be
sublet for substantial gain. The over -pricing of the many empty moorings though,
deprives the Tideland's Fund of potential revenue, and creates a false scarcity.
This in turn, serves to drive up the price which might be obtained for the very
limited number of City held Mooring Licenses (16). It's simple supply and demand
economics. Pricing is being artificially manipulated through policy.
Conclusion:
Mayor and Council willfully and knowingly choosing to ignore multiple sources of
reliable and consistent data, in favor of manipulated and flawed data, is beyond
problematic. As is choosing to rely on a preferred, apparently manipulated and
conflicted outlier Appraisal Report. As is allowing the continued loss of potential
Tidelands revenue, though mismanagement and inefficiency.
An ongoing refusal to accept that the current SLC Benchmark rate; your own,
slightly adjusted this very month Residential Pier Permit fee; The CBRE Offshore
Mooring Appraisal Report values; and the lower fees for moorings in other areas
of the State establish "fair market rent" for moorings, would be willful/wrongful/
harmful.
Until this most recent misguided and deceptive Harbor Commission rate increase
Recommendation was begun, Mooring Permitees, for use of the same State
resource, were willingly paying multiple times more in rates than Residential Pier
Permitees. Oftentimes, the moorings and piers are not even very distant from one
another. It is difficult to extract fairness from this disparity, but it was being
tolerated. As more and more information has come to light during the progression
of the Recommendation and Alternative though, the level of unfairness has
become increasingly pronounced, concerning, and to many, unacceptable.
How could Harbor Commissioner Vice Chair Ira Beer, in good conscience, have
repeatedly implied that Mooring Permittees, while paying higher fees, may be
beneficiaries of unconstitutional gifts of the use of State lands, while at the same
time, others are paying no fees for the actual space their associated vessels
occupy? How could have each Harbor Commissioner, in good conscience, have
ethically endorsed increasing the rate disparity and discrimination even further?
And in the same vein, how could The Harbor Commission, some of whom are
equity members in Newport Yacht Clubs, think that it's "fair" to not subject
themselves or their peer's Clubs, and The Lido Isle Community Association, to the
same excessive fee increases, in the same timelines they propose for Mooring
Permittees unaffiliated with these exclusive entities? And how could Mayor, and
five of six Councilmembers have bought into this on July ? And for how long, will
this buy -in continue? These materials in part, are to establish that any action(s)
that The City/Mayor/Council take in these matters, is/are taken willfully, and
knowingly.
Sincerely,
ntl�
Adam Leverenz
adlever@hotmail.com
Attachment A:
Statewide Mooring
Rent/Fee Comparison:
1 pg.
Mooring fees in California 2024
Yearly fees for 40' boat
Avalon
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy docks provided.
Morro Bay
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.
San Diego Shelter Island
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dinghy dock provided.
Monterey Bay
Yearly fee to city
24/7 dingy dock $600 yr
$523.20.
$1320.
$1538.04. (Maintenance included)
$1000.
Santa Barbara
Yearly fee to city is $350.00.
24/7 dingy dock $125 yr
Conclusion:
Average vearlv fees in California $1091.25
24/7 dinghy docks provided:
Newport Harbor $1603.00
Mooring permitee must pay
approx. $750 yearly for mooring
maintenance and upkeep.
No dinghy docks provided
After new fee schedule $5760,00*
phase -in:
This rate hike is designed to deny access to all but the wealthiest
people, and force middle class boaters out of the harbor. It will put an
end to affordable family boating in Newport Harbor.
*This number will increase in proportion to increases in marina fee increases and
inflation.
Attachment B:
Residential Pier Permit
Rate Disparity
3 p9s.
California State Lands Act, CHAPTER 74, SECTION 1 (a)(3)(d)
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the
lands or any Improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the
city or its successors sb&U make no discrimination in rates, tollls, or
charges for any use oT service in connection therewith.
City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program — Coastal Land Use Plan
3.3. -3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as are
important source of low -cast public access to the water and harbor.
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS
COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
City of Newport Beach
April 9, 2024 Page 3
impact of increased rates. Staff also observes a significant disparity between the
City's residential pier rates and mooring rates. In addifon 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.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3
July 9, 2024
RECOMMENDATIONS: b) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-44, A Resolution of the City of Newport Beach, California,
Revising Certain Rents Within the Schedule of Rents, Fine and Fees.
PUBLIC WORKS - HARBOR RESOURCES
Piers
m� Reside!ntfAI
S156 SO-55 SO.57 persc.
14 boat berthing spaces, at a Beacon Bay HOA affiliated pier/dock, pay a combined total of $541.97 annually for the
physical footprint of the pier/dock over public submerged lands. The boats pay no fees for the space they occupy.
(A Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner has served on the HOA board)
Residential Pier Permits (1) _
<
Residential Pier Permit > i
Address: 2 BE -CON BR(
r
Permit Area Tatni Square Fantage: L77
+
'.
Fier is not shared b, more than one resident'. Fee is
based on total square footage
Permit Fee
Current Year: S,941.97 r
Pier Permit Exhibit
A pier/dock, CDP Reconfigu red under a Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner's name, pays $352.80 per year
(2 Residences x $ 176.40) for the physical footprint of the pier/dock. The boats pay no fees for their footprint.
Attachment C:
Harbor Commissioner
e-Arnails/
RFP Invitation #21-53
Info:
5 pgs.
n Ad 22, 2020, at 1: 8 PM, Cunningham, Scott
wrote:
Removing Jim.
Hi All,
I've had two long conversations with Jim regarding the 2016 Mooring Appraisal.
The net net is when we are ready (and ftinded) the appraisal results will look
much different than the 2016 numbers.
Note the dates:
Scotts email — 7 0 0
FP 21-53 Published — 401
TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE
F FP Published: onpril 8. 2
City of Newport Beach Loc w
Bid Opportunities
Keyword
Bid Type
111
—
Categories
■
Stage -
_
Due Date From
ClearNNW
Department
Due Date To
Found B52 bids
Posted
Project Title
Invitation #
Due Date Remaining
Stage
Format
04/08/2021
Tidelands On -Shore & Off Share Appraisal Services
21-53
05I20J2021 D1:DDpm
Awarded
Electronic
0412712021
Landfill Gas (LFG) Control System Operation & Mainte...
21-57
05/18/2021 D1:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
04/20/2021
Business License and Permit Processing Software
21-55
05/18/2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
04/28/2021
(4 2021 Ford F-150 2WD SuperCab Trucks
21-58
05/12/2021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
04119I2D21
On -Call TrafficlTransport at[or Engineering
21-09
05/10/2021 03:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
0411512021
FY2020-21 Traffic Signal Rehabilitation
C-7791-1
05/10/2021 10 00am
Closed
Electronic
0411312D21
Establishment of Eligibility List far Referral of Real Est...
21-54
04/28/2021 01:00pm
Closed
Electronic
04/01/2021
Armored Transport Services
21-52
04/28/2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
03119I2D21
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS-TESTING,DESIG...
7223-1
041201202102:00prn
Award Pending
Electronic
03/22/2021
Parking Code Consulting Services
21-43
0411312G21 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
03/19/2021
AS -NEEDED SPORT & RECREATIONAL FIELD LANDS...
7997-1
D410812021 02:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
03/24/2021
As -Needed Athletic and Recreational Field Services
21-45
04/08/2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic
0312512021
Dover Shares TrafFle Calming improvements
7998-1
0410812D21 10:00am
Closed
Electronic
03/24/2021
(3) 2021 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 Double Cab Vehicles
2146
04/07/2021 01 00pm
Closed
Electronic -
0211812021
UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N...
7979-1
04/07/2021 10 00am
Awarded
Electronic
0311012D21
Generator maintenance & Repair Services
2141
04/05/2021 01:00pm
Awarded
Electronic v
L'oPyrlght Q 2G24 Planei9itls, LLC
Vendorl-ine I Dark Mode l Privacv Policy I Teams & conditions l Accessibility
City of Newport Beach
( Back to Bid Search
Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services 21-53
Bidlnformation Documerrts Aedernda/Emails Q&A PrespectiveBidders M
Showing 4 Bid Results
Vendor
Lea Associates, Inc.
1631 PoniiusAvenue
Los Angeles, California 90025
Contact: Robert M. Lea, MAI
Phone: 310-477-6595
Netzer & Associates
170 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 206
Costa Mesa, California 92627
Contact: James Netzer, MAI
Phone:9496316799
R. P. Laurain & Associates, Inc.
3353 Linden Avenue
Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90807
Contact: John P Laurain
Phone:5624260477
The Dore Group Inc
i 01 o University Avenue
Suite C207
San Diego, California 92103
Contact: Lance W Dore
Phone: 619-933-5040 ext. 101
Awards
Type Bid Amount Ranking Responsive
$0.00133 0 Yes
$0.0ow 0 Yes
$0.0003 0 Yes
DGS $O.Uo00 0 Yes
Awaroe:;
copyright ® 7024 Planetslyds, tie Ven6orLine I Dark Mode I Privacy Policy I Tem15 A Conditions I Amesstiiity
City of Newport Beach
( Back to Bid Search
Tidelands On -Share & Off -Shore Appraisal Services 21-53
Bidlnfosmation Documents Addenda/Emails q8A ProspecMBidders BidResuBs
Awarded on August 3, 2021
Please see the attached Notice of Intent to Award (also uploaded under the 'Addenda & Emails" tab of this RFP page) for additional details regarding the evaluation and award process for RFP 21-53.
Item # Item Code Description U01M
v Complete Project
1 Tidelands On -Shore & Off -Shore Appraisal Services Complete Project
LO.G IN
Awarded
The project has been awarded to Netzer & Associates W
4ty
1
Copyright C 2624 Plan ffWids, LLC VEn (JOTLln2 I Dark Mode I Privacy Polk} I Tema & CDnditions I Accessibility
�ronl: Scott Cunningham
To: Jim Netzer
cc: Woodina, Lauren
Subject: 45 Newport Offshore Mooring in D Feld - boats - by owner - marine sale - craigslist
Date: September 20, 2023 1:03:50 PM
Attadiments: 45 Newoort Offshore Moonna in D Feld - boats - by owner - marine sale - craiaslist.ona
Nice tidy profit...
(From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hi Jim,
Cunningham, Scott
Jim Netzer
Woodinci, Lauren
Fwd: alert: Ne%vport Mooring
June 09, 2022 10:17:32 AM
Probably going to move forward with offshore appraisal towards end of Summer but wanted
you to keep this for your records. Check out last sentence.
Thanks,
Scott
Scott Cunningham
Begin forwarded message:
From: CL Search <alerts(dalerts.craigshst.org>
Date: June 9, 2022 at 9:36:41 AM PDT
To: scott12159Cicloud.com
Subject: alert: Newport Mooring
1 new result for search terms: Newport )looring, sort: relevant, as of 2022-06-09 09:36:37
AM PDT
View all the results.
Llnsuhscribe from this alert.
Commissioner Cunningham is seen here sending emails of craigslist ads, which shows the purported listings of craigslist
ads for offshore moorings for sale
Attachment D:
Harbormaster/
City Attorney/
City Agreement —
e-mails:
5 pgs.
Harbormaster Update — April 2022 Activities
May 11, 2022
Page 5
- Initiatives were launched resulting in better data capture and statistics reporting.
Future improvements will include customer satisfaction survey data analysis and
calls for service location analysis
Participated in the Emergency Operations Response to the following:
o Elly oil spill
o Tsunami warning
o Three severe weather occurrences
o Sewage spill into the harbor
o Out of control stolen boat in the harbor
The Harbormaster has disclosed the arrangements made, at his own expense to alleviate
any conflict of interest associated with his ongoing use of an offshore mooring permit.
While undergoing the recruitment process, any and all known possible conflicts of interest
were disclosed. Prior to the City making an offer of employment, all such possible
conflicts were discussed with the City Attorney. Agreements and arrangements
satisfactory to all relevant parties were made during that discussion. The Harbormaster
was entrusted and empowered to make determinations going forward related to any
conflict disclosures. In support of this arrangement, the Harbormaster:
- does not participate in discussions or the development of recommendations related
to use or financial arrangements associated with offshore moorings
- reminds anyone with an interest that input on recommendations related to offshore
mooring permits are made by Real Property Administration staff
- does not deliberate or vote on any policy related matters before the Harbor
Commission
- is expected to answer questions related to policy implementation and impacts on
Harbor Department operations
- hereby discloses that the offshore mooring permit he enjoys is held in an irrevocable
trust the beneficiary of which is the Balboa Yacht Club. The Balboa Yacht Club holds
all the offshore mooring permits adjacent to the subject mooring
- hoping to avoid other conflict of interest concerns also hereby discloses any
significant financial interests related to the Balboa Yacht Club including a
membership certificate are held in the same irrevocable trust
- further discloses that all remaining financial interests in either the subject offshore
mooring permit or membership in the Balboa Yacht Club are de minimis
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the Harbor Commission find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment)
and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA
From: iamesbnetzerAaol.com
To: VVoodina, Lauren; Blank, Paul
Subject: Offshore shore Mooring Appraisal Question
Date: December 05, 2023 4:08:15 PM
[EXTERNAL E-MAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachllients unletiS Volt recognize the sender and know the
'ontent is safe.
Lauren & Paul,
I am trying to get the draft appraisal completed but I have a question about the size of
a "typical" mooring and the square feet of tidelands that it encumbers. Can
methodology I apply the "land value" to the square footage and convert it to a rental
rate. In the onshore mooring appraisal I based the value on an onshore mooring
encumbering an area of 288 square feet (36' x 8') based on the "typical" area from the
point of attachment (seawall) to the mooring buoy/ball and an 8' beam. what
dimensions and square footage should I use for the offshore mooring?
Thanks for your assistance!
Regards,
Jim N etze r
From: Blank, Paul
To: jamesbnetzer(waol.com
Subject: RE: DRAFT - Offshore Mooring Appraisal w/ Tiered rates
Date: December 27, 2023 10:23:00 AM
Attachments: imaae001.PnQ
Great work! !
Thankyou
Have a great New Year.
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Blank. Paul
jamesbnetzer
Wooding. Lauren
Re: offshore Mooring Appraisal Question
December 05, 2023 4:48:06 PM
PastedGraghic-2.ong
The cool thing about onshore moorings is they are essentially all the same size.
Offshore moorings are of a variety of sizes (25', 30', 35, 40'...90').
Any dimensions I give you will be subject to critique as "not representative of the variety of
sizes, configurations and conditions" actually out there.
That disclaimer out of the way, the biggest population of moorings out there are 40' moorings.
A typical 40' boat on one of those moorings would be 40' long x 14' wide but the mooring
takes up much more space than that.
The distance from the boat to each mooring float is approximately 10' - so the space taken tip
on the surface is approximately 60'. Then there is the placement of the weights on the sea
floor. The distance from the float to the weight adds at least 7' and up to as many as 15' to
each end of the mooring depending on the depth where the mooring is placed.
If you want to go with just the surface dimensions consiuned by the typical mooring on
Newport Harbor, go with 60' x 20'.
If you want to go with the dimensions of the entire mooring including what's below the
surface, go with 80' x 20'.
Best,
From: Wooding, Lauren
To: "iamesbnetzer5gol.com"
Subject: RE: DRAFT APPRAISAL - Offshore Moorings - Fair Market Rent
Date: December 20, 2023 5:18:00 PM
Attachments: imaoe001.Pno
Hi Jim,
Thanks very much for getting this draft in to me before the end of the year. I will be sharing
internally and will be in touch after the new year with any comments or changes before we have you
finalize the report and take it out of draft mode.
I hope you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and get to spend time with your family
in the next few weeks!
And I look forward to catching up with you in the new year.
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Communitv Development Department
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024, 4:56 PM, Wooding, Lauren <LWood] ngCnewportbeachca.gov>
wrote:
Hi Jim,
I'm going through the report and have some additional comments and questions that
I'd like to address before we publish this, since I know it will be reviewed very closely.
Do you have time tomorrow morning to review with me?
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger
Real Property Administrator
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
70
-----Original message -----
From: Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov>
To: James Netzer (jamesbnetzer@aol.com) <jamesbnetzer@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2022 1 0:35 am
Subject: FW: Shore Mooring Rental Rate Increase
Hi Jim,
Thanks for answering all of the questions I submitted to you. I am reviewing them with Paul and wi
let you know if we have any further questions.
In the meantime, can you review the email below and let me know when you have son
chat. I think this should be considered in our valuation, but I think it is mostly a matter
administrative capacity. I want to get your take on it before I discuss further with Paul.
Than k you,
Lauren
LAUREN WOODING WHITLINGER
Communitv Development Deaartment
71
Howdy Jim:
Thanks for taking the meeting this morning.
Upon further inspection of that one 25' mooring in the BYC field, I noticed that an individual holds it and
therefore needs a rate set by the City.
don't think you need to perform some extensive analysis just for that one mooring.
Please just apply the 30' rate you determine to that mooring but definitely add an entry in the report that
includes the 25' category.
Sorry for my previous inaccurate or incomplete statement.
Paul Blank
Wpo"qq, Harbormaster
0
Attachment E:
A partial selection of images, showing
various members of the public
transitioning through; recreating in;
and using the supposed space
Mooring Permittees are claimed by
the City, to have Private Exclusive Use
of, as compared to the level of Private
Exclusive Use exercised by the City
itself, and select Residential Pier
Permitees:
21 pgs.
c
00
� � a
M
till
u
- Val
A
a
t
• y-%�rl
r
0"
IL
1.. lip
y 7
a
4
t
y I
E
_�e
01
W
&Lai' MIZZ pp_ 44
'l-SdMhm.Jl'
r - -
wet
IMF
W!20"i am I Tm I'm
or
A
9
F_
The following images, show City and
Residential piers/docks,
which occupy granted sovereign land,
but which are posted as if Private Property:
r .
��1S111� G G�S� l7�lY
M} TMf SP1l5Sq�
i A omm�" r'-'.'
JIML-i; �
■ � a •46
,1h�jr -r
f'
r �
l:
I
t"I"i. M--L,
. r•�•�II_�II
It
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
ad=
Dent - City Council
City Clerk"s Office
Re: Public Comment for July 23, 2024 City Council Meeting Re: Ordinance 2024-15
July 22, 2024 9:50:20 AM
'rERNAL EMAII,J Du NOT
content is safe
Dear Mayor O'Neill and Esteemed Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your responses to my previous correspondence regardingthe
postponement request for the second reading of Ordinance 2024-15.
The Newport Mooring Association represents approximately 1000 mooring holders in
Newport Harbor. We are advocating for this postponement on behalf of mooring
permittees due to significant concerns regarding the transparency of the ordinance
proposal process and the lack of clarity in defining a mechanism for maintenance of
current rates for current permittees. The "alternative plan" presented diverged
substantially from whatwas initially outlined during the Harbor Commission's January
2024 session. Furthermore, this alternative plan was introduced to the public over a
major holidayweekend (July5th) and swiftly voted on the subsequent Tuesday (July9th),
allowing insufficient time for meaningful public input or the thorough consideration of
councilmember concerns.
During the City Council Meeting on July 9, 2024, several council members articulated
valid reasons supporting the request for extended discussion and public feedback on
Ordinance 2024-15. Councilmember Avery emphasized that "There's a lot of work to be
done" (5:27) and stressed the need to safeguard the interests of affected individuals
(5:29). Councilmember Grant underscored the importance of maintaining accessibility
and affordability for existing mooring holders, advocating for a sustainable, long-term
solution (5:35). Mayor O'Neill acknowledged the permanence of liveaboard permits
while acknowledging future uncertainties. "Can that change by a future Council? Yeah"
(5:44), and Councilmember Weigand highlighted concerns over the "uncertainty"
surrounding the proposed solution (5:38). These concerns reinforce the need to
establish a durable lease or comparable framework that secures the interests of current
mooring permittees, as underscored by Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton (4:20).
At the City Council meeting on May 24, 2023, assurances were given regarding the
perpetual transferability of mooring permits, a commitment now rescinded while other
public tideland permits remain unaffected. Reneging on a promise made a little over one
year ago understandably raises doubts as to the trustworthiness of this council among
mooring holders.
In the spirit of transparency and practicality, we strongly urge the council to postpone
action in order to formalize protections for current mooring permittees.
Once again, the NMA stands ready to meet with city leaders to begin addressing these
pressing issues at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Anne Stenton
President, Newport Mooring Association
From: Biddle, Jennifer
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Public Comments for July 23, 2024 City Council Meeting
Date: July 22, 2024 11:24:11 AM
From: kartbin <kartbin@yahoo.com>
Sent: July 22, 2024 11:22 AM
To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for July 23, 2024 City Council Meeting
[EXTERNAFP4 X_RTE DO NOT CLICK Firiks or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear City Council,
We are asking for this postponement on behalf of mooring permittees for several
reasons. The biggest concern we have is the lack of transparency in the process of
proposing this ordinance. Not only was this "alternative plan" fundamentally different
from what was shared via the Harbor Commission in January of 2024, this alternative
plan was only shared with the public over a major holiday weekend (July 5th) and
initially voted on the following Tuesday (July 9th) which did not give adequate time for
public input or to address Councilmembers' concerns.
Additionally, we agree with City Council members that this ordinance needs more
detail before the second reading. Why the rush to push this ordinance through?
Several Councilmembers made statements at the July 9, 2024 City Council Meeting
regarding Ordinance 2024-15 that support the request for additional time for
discussion and public input. Councilmember Avery stated clearly that "there's a lot of
work to be done" (5:27) and "We need to protect people... if we say it's in perpetuity,
we need to protect them, and there's a lot of things on the list here and there's a lot of
work to be done to make it right" (5:29). We couldn't agree more. Councilmember
Grant stated "It is extremely important that we maintain the accessibility and the
affordability for the people who are there and have relied on what they have... we do
need a long term solution (5:35). Mayor O'Neill stated "Folks on liveaboards can
liveaboard for the rest of their lives" but then added "Can that change by a future City
Council? Yeah" (5:44). Councilmember Weigand mentioned "the word uncertainty"
(5:38) as it relates to this solution.
This is why the NMA has requested that City leaders sit down with us to develop a
long-term lease or similar solution to protect the interests of current mooring
permittees. Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton stated on July 9, 2024, "If I'm a mooring permit
holder today and I have a permit I can continue that permit for as long as I want to be
in the harbor" (4-20). But what is the mechanism for ensuring that promise? At the
May 24, 2023 City Council meeting, transferability was said to be protected "in
perpetuity" (1:54) as it was discussed between Mayor O'Neill and Harbormaster Blank
and again stated by City Attorney Harp (2:20). Now, transferability for mooring
permits, but not for other permits on public tidelands, will effectively be ending. It is
easy to see why mooring holders are concerned. In the interest of transparency and
common sense, we ask that the council use its power to enshrine these protections
for current mooring permittees.
As Councilmember Avery asked on July 9th, why the rush to adopt this
ordinance, which they themselves have stated needs more work done to "make
it right?"
Please consider the following:
Why wasn't this proposal run through the Harbor Commission?
Why wasn't there more time for public input and comment?
Why the rush to pass this "alternative plan", when there is clearly more work to
be done to ensure current mooring permittees are guaranteed their rates in
perpetuity?
The timeline of the new proposal presents insurmountable logistical challenges and
we therefore urge you to hold off on tomorrow's vote so that the new plan can be
reviewed further.
We requested guidance from the Newport Mooring Association, but there is much
confusion about the details and they are unable to advise us.
This is an inappropriate and unacceptable timeline.
Like many people, we are out of town and unable to appear in person to change our
mooring permit.
Thank you for your cooperation, the Baker Family
From: Sarah Zielsdorf Calvert
To: Dent - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Public Comments for July 23, 2024 City Council Meeting
Date: July 22, 2024 12:33:23 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello City Council,
As mooring holders and residents of Newport Beach we are extremely disappointed in the City Council's lack of
transparency regarding 2024-15. We don't understand why you are rushing this proposal to a vote without adequate
time for public input.
We deserve better from our elected officials!
Regards,
Kenny & Sarah Calvert
From: Lunetta, KimCa1SLC
To: Leung, Grace; Dept - City Council; City Clerk"s Office
Cc: Sahar Durali; Huckelbridge, Kate(�bCoastal; Blackmon, Seth(d)SLC; Harbor Commission
Subject: Public Comment letter for July 23rd City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 3 - Ordinance No. 2024-15
Date: July 22, 2024 1:13:20 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
image002.pnno
imaae003.ona
City of Newport Beach Agenda Item 3 Ord 2024-15 Itr signed 7.22.2024.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
pfe.
Good afternoon,
Please see attached letter from Executive Officer Jennifer Lucchesi regarding Agenda
Item 3 at the City Council July 23rd meeting.
Kind regards,
Kim Luneffa, Administrative Assistant
Executive Office
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento CA 95825
916.574.1397
Kim.Lunetta@slc.ca.aov
0' o'J
From: Peter Broome
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Fwd: Long time resident and new mooring permittee requests ability to transfer permit for those with less than
12 months ownership
Date: July 22, 2024 1:30:59 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless vou der and kn
content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Peter Broome <neternbroome&gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Long time resident and new mooring permittee requests ability to transfer permit for
those with less than 12 months ownership
To:<citycouncil&newportbeachca.gov>, <thecit, clerkgnewportbeach.gov>
Cc: <hbpagm&gmail.com>
Dear City Leaders,
I believe there was an oversight in the recent resolution regarding mooring permittees,
specifically those who have been permittees for less than 12 months, as they cannot currently
transfer their permit due to the 12 month permittee holding rule. This effectively eliminates
the value they recently paid to transfer the permit. They do not have the same benefit of
transferring to a new permittee that the others have.
I am a long time Newport Beach resident who became the permittee of mooring K-002 on
April 8, 2024. I paid $55,000, with oversight of the city, to transfer the permit for mooring K-
002 to me as the new permittee . This permit was part of my retirement plan. I planned to use
the mooring as part time residence throughout my retirement then transfer the mooring when I
am older, to help financially support my later retirement.
I ask that you add the give permittees with less than one year of ownership the right to transfer
permits until Aug 21, 2024. I currently have someone that is ready to pay for the transfer of
my permit, but the city will not allow it with the current rules. We tried to transfer the permit
this morning with Madison and she said our only recourse is through the City Council.
Please consider this impact to some of your long time residents. I hope this is heard in
tomorrow night's meeting. Please add it to the agenda.
Best regards,
Peter Broome
111 18th St, Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-351-1396
From: Biddle, Jennifer
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Long time resident and new mooring permittee requests ability to transfer permit for those with less than 12
months ownership
Date: July 22, 2024 1:33:54 PM
From: Peter Broome <peternbroome@gmail.com>
Sent: July 22, 2024 1:25 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; thecityclerk@newportbeach.gov
Subject: Re: Long time resident and new mooring permittee requests ability to transfer permit for
those with less than 12 months ownership
Wr
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
Lontent is safe.
Sorry for a couple of typos ... this is emotional for me...
I got my permit April 8, 2024... just a few months ago...
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:23 PM Peter Broome <peternbroomeCaOgmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Leaders,
I believe there was an oversight in the recent resolution regarding mooring permittees,
specifically those who have been permittees for less than 12 months, as they cannot
currently transfer their permit due to the 12 month permittee holding rule. This
effectively eliminates the value they recently paid to transfer the permit. They do not
have the same benefit of transferring to a new permittee that the others have.
I am a long time Newport Beach resident who became the permittee of mooring K-002
on April 87, 2004. 1 paid $55,000, with oversight of the city, to transfer the permit for
mooring K-002 to me as the new permittee. This permit was part of my
retirement plan. I planned to use the mooring as part time residence throughout my
retirement then transfer the mooring when I am older, to help financially support my
Later retirement.
I ask that you add the give permittees with less than one year of ownership the right to
transfer permits until Aug 21, 2024. 1 currently have someone that is ready to pay for
the transfer of my permit, but the city will not allow it with the current rules. We tried to
transfer the permit this morning with Madison and she said our only recourse is
through the City Council.
Please consider this impact to some of your long time residents. I hope this is heard in
tomorrow night's meeting. Please add it to the agenda.
Best regards,
Peter Broome
111 18th St, Newport Beach, CA 92663
949-351-1396
From: Biddle, Jennifer
To: City Clerk"s Office
Subject: FW: Mooring Title changes
Date: July 22, 2024 3:27:49 PM
-----Original Message -----
From: Nick Ralston <nickinlaguna@gmail.com>
Sent: July 22, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Mooring Title changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
I currently own the N-5 title. I am confused by the lack of information, and really nothing has been sent to me yet,
regarding this new scenario. Transferability within family for example. Trust hand me down? where is the
information? There should be no deadlines to adjust until mooring "owners" have time to process the new
language. Nick Ralston