15-151
OPEN LETTER TO THE DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
P--,11in we
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this letter in an effort to persuade you to head off the current direction of the Harbor Commission in its' effort to not only change the current rules concerning transferability of mooring permits, but also, in my opinion, the outrageous format presented to validate the increase in shore mooring rates. I will follow with a brief family history and comment on the mooring transfer issue and then conclude with a comment on the proposed lease rate increases.
My name is Lawrence Reid. I am a permittee for mooring sites, A-231 and P-047, both an offshore and on shore mooring. I have been so since 2013 when I acquired the permit rights via the open market subject to all requirements and conditions in place at that time. My family has been involved and concerned with Newport Harbor since my grandfather purchased a homesite on 61" Street in 1915 and built a cottage home there in 1917 and continue to be involved to this day. I personally solidified that involvement by finding a complimentary pair of moorings to settle into a "life on the water" situation.
At that time of my searching for two moorings, the management of the moorings fell under the jurisdiction of the OCSO. The "Golden Rule" of trying to purchase permit rights on the open market at that time was to make ABSOLUTELY sure that there was a remaining transfer option available to me after purchase. There were many mooring sites on the market that had already exhausted that option so the due diligence I invested was paramount to preserve that future transfer option for me. While not cheap, the verified confirmation and assurance from the OCSO that I had another transfer available made it doable.
Therefore, I urge you to strongly oppose any new proposal that negates the existing status quo of the ability to transfer permit rights on the private market to not only those permittees that had additional transfer rights conferred to them, but to all mooring permittees as a group.
To the current discussions on the rental rate increases for a shore mooring permit. As proposed, the shore mooring lease fees will be based off of prime commercial property lease rates as indicated in the current commercial tideland appraisal. On the surface, this is certainly not an example of an apple to apple comparison on so many different levels. Shore permittees are already being charged the most per square foot for tideland use when compared to residential dock, pier and commercial tideland rates. It is neither fair nor equitable to make any significant rate increase that does not take into consideration the disproportional fee considerations that the pier permittees do not have to pay for the use of the same tidelands, not to mention the revenue streams available to them for slip or side tie rentals without any restrictions.
When you consider the hoops that I as a shore mooring leasee has to go through, under the current formats, I receive no benefit from my lease. The Harbor Department can rent out my space if unoccupied 15-152
without notice for long periods of time but I can't sublet my mooring without "owning" the boat that is being used. I pay for all of the upkeep without any maintenance monies being set aside to assist in the upkeep. The City keeps it all. As far as insurance coverage goes, I have to indemnify the City whether my boat is on my mooring or not, the City requires the rental craft to indemnify the City prior to use but nowhere in the City Title does it require the transient boat to indemnify me. I am left again, holding a wet, empty paper bag.
Currently, we are now faced with some agenda items to be presented at the November 9, 2022 commission meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend in person. For the life of me I can't understand the massive effort being mustered to completely eviscerate the parity and quality of life that both the on -shore and off -shore permittees should expect.
What is the main push to change what has been the norm for almost forever? To think that a double off- shore mooring is going to improve the off -shore mooring lifestyle is ludicrous in my opinion. Who will pay for the added upkeep for the new common mooring ball? Why would you create a navigational hazard knowing the prevailing winds are from the west in the harbor. The current set-up allows for maximum maneuverability in ALL wind conditions? Now to consider the possibility that in order to use my offshore mooring I would need to first see if my boat has been moved to another part of the harbor for reasons that appear to be so flaky it makes me shudder.
I could go on and on, but let me close by saying, the Harbor Commission needs to quit treating the mooring permittees as the black sheep of the family and quit trying to legislate these ill-founded extra burdens on current permittees.
Thank you for your time and effort. It is not an easy job and you won't please everyone as you know. The current proposed changes need to be "deep sixed" immediately.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047
15-153
Fred Fourcher
507 Larkspur
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners,
I have lived in Corona Del Mar since 1979 and have had my offshore and onshore moorings since 1976. My offshore mooring and onshore mooring are on Balboa Island and adjacent to each other.
It is stated that the intent is to improve the harbor to the benefit of mooring permittees.
What is being decided is if the City of Newport Beach can move our boat to a different mooring permanently without our permission and at our expense, is clearly not for the benefit of mooring permittees and has some other purpose. Mooring locations are picked for a reason, Permittees acquired permits in specific locations such as proximity to their house, yacht club or shore mooring. This major disruption will result in lawsuits and political fallout. The people who you are supposed to be serving will do whatever it takes to keep the current order in the harbor. This is simply a bad idea with massive un-intended consequences.
This proposal is deeply troubling because the Harbor Commission is usurping the decision - making responsibility from our Elected Officials. There is no reason to be revising the city harbor code for a pilot test of a questionable mooring system.
This proposal is not for the benefit of the Mooring Permittees. I along with others will mobilize to fight the Harbor Commission to keep this poorly conceived proposal from being implemented.
Fred Fourcher
15-154
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane, Riverside, CA 92507
Mooring J54
Newport Beach Harbor Commission([email protected]) Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner and Vise Chairman ([email protected]) November 2, 2022
COMMENTS REGARDING: e-mail dated 10/26/2022, from Ira Beer "Important Information Concerning Your Mooring"
Newport Beach Harbor Commission, and/or Ira Beer,
SUMMARY:
At first look, the proposed changes to mooring fields J and H seem desirable, however after further consideration, many of the proposed changes could have undesirable consequences, including impaired safety and functionality.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS INCLUDE:
In general, there is a prevailing wind direction through the harbor. Presently, moored, boats tend to be facing into the wind, which is desirable, and is easier and safer when boats are approaching a mooring.
Furthermore, present spacing allows boats to leave a mooring by going forward into the wind (particularly desirable for sail boats). The proposed plan would have some boats with their stern to the wind, not desirable, and would require most boats to back from a mooring when leaving.
The examples shown for the proposed arrangement show only 40, and 50-foot moorings. Boats in the 30-to-40-foot range should be considered.
While it may be desirable to cleanup the alignment of moorings, that should be possible with the current arrangement, if mooring placement can be as precise as implied for the proposed plan. Also, to prevent mooring buoys from drifting into the fairways, spreader lines could be installed on current buoys.
The desire to add additional moorings is fine if it does not interfere with the functionality of existing moorings. Furthermore, there will never be enough moorings.
Though I have sailed in Newport Harbor for over 50 years and had a mooring there for more than 30 years, I would welcome a discussion with, and input from, others with more experience regarding the management of moorings.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 909-228-6970 and/or [email protected] Thank you for your consideration.
i
r
Donald V. Farley
Newport Harbor Commissioners, 11-2-22a
15-155
Newport Mooring Association
November 8, 2022
NMA Comments regarding the November 9th 2022 Newport Beach Harbor Commission Item #3 - Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests Dear Honorable Members of the Harbor Commission,
Please find the following documents for your consideration. For your convenience we provide the following table of contents:
1. NMA concerns regarding the proposed Harbor Code revisions and plan Page 2
2. Summary list of recommendations regarding Agenda Item #3 Page 4
3. Correspondence from Attorney Doug Carstairs identifying legal concerns Page 5
4. Letter from Master Mariner Captain James L. Haley detailing concerns Page 10
5. Harbor Commission Tracking Sheet with harbor code revisions and complete mooring plan presented to NMA and public for the first time October 12th Page 12
6. Professional and timely email responses from the NMA to Harbor Commission Page 13
7. Follow-up email from L. Scott Karlin to Commissioner Beer 10-26-22 with attachments with specific recommendations to clarify language in Title 17 Page 18 15-156
Newport
November 81h, 2022
Dear Chair Scully and Harbor Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding November 9th Harbor Commission Agenda Item #6-3 (Objective 2.3) involving significant revisions to the harbor code and the initial stage (pilot test) of a plan to significantly change access to the mooring fields.
The NMA is extremely concerned that revisions to the harbor code are being considered in advance of an untested mooring plan concept. These specific proposed harbor code revisions were seen by the public, for the first time ever, on the October 12th, 2022, agenda. The proposed revisions to the harbor code (Title 17) were not developed in public and were not hashed out in any public stakeholder meetings. The revisions appear to have been developed in closed door subcommittee meetings with no public oversight or input.
The proposed harbor code revisions would allow the harbormaster or the Harbor Commission, to move large numbers of boats or moorings to new locations in the name of "realignment" without any constraints or conditions, and without City Council approval. We have also heard concerns from many homeowners.
We want to be good neighbors and are also concerned that this will have an impact not only on mooring holders, but also on residences and homeowners who may have their views altered now and, in the future, again without restrictions or City Council approval. Some homeowners may have a bit better view, some worse, but no one will know how this will play out now or in the future.
We are also concerned with the harbor code revision involving transferring certain mooring decision making authority from our elected City Council to the Harbor Commission. The City Charter appropriately differentiates the formal responsibility of the Harbor Commission as an advisory panel and the City Council as the formal decision -making body. Notably, the Council is comprised of individuals elected to serve their constituents and they are therefore responsible and accountable for their decisions.
The timing is also problematic. The granting of broader authority to the Harbor Commission and Harbormaster while they embark on a new mooring plan that has already been identified as problematic to the permittees will create another point of contention. Transparency, accountability, and collaboration should not be compromised during this phase.
As you may be aware, the complete mooring report, with the supporting engineering study on the holding power of the proposed anchor system was first presented for public review at the October 121h, 2022, Harbor Commission meeting. Numerous members of the public expressed concern regarding increased risk and the difficulty of use of the proposed "shared anchor" mooring plan that involves moving mooring rows closer together and the requirement for a mooring user to be forced to approach a mooring in a downwind manner given our prevailing westerly winds. Approaching a mooring in a downwind fashion is never recommended as it involves less control of a vessel, which in turn, increases risk. 2 15-157
Given we have not been presented with a revised plan since the October 12t" Harbor Commission meeting, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to comment on what may be presented on November 9t" as we have not seen any revisions to the mooring plan.
The NMA opposes a mooring plan that requires a mooring user to approach a mooring in a downwind manner (and depart a mooring in an upwind manner). The proposal presented on October 12th pushes the shared -anchor mooring rows close together which indicates there will only be "one way in" and "one way out"'. This is less safe compared to the current configuration that has sufficient spacing between rows which gives mooring users the option to approach and depart from either direction depending on wind and current.
We believe the shared -anchor mooring concept has not been adopted throughout Southern California because it is inherently risky. We are only aware of a shared anchor mooring system in use in SoCal location, America's Cup Harbor, which is a fully protected marina within in an already protected harbor that is protected by Point Loma adjacent to "Shelter" Island in San Diego. The conditions in America's Cup and Newport Harbor are not comparable.
The NMA respectfully requests the Harbor Commission put the Title 17 revisions and mooring plan revisions on hold and schedule public stakeholder meetings to allow for more robust community engagement and stakeholder input. We would like to point out that the Harbor Commission held numerous stakeholder meetings when revising the harbor code a few years ago. These informal public stakeholder meetings allowed for robust community engagement, thoughtful back -and -forth which resulted in stakeholder buy -in to harbor code revisions. In contrast, these revisions have been developed out of public view and without robust community and stakeholder engagement.
It is our understanding that the initial intent of Objective 2.3 was to straighten out a few mooring rows. We believe this can be accomplished through voluntary and incentivized relocations.
The NMA looks forward to collaborating with the Harbor Commission to improve Newport Harbor while preserving the established mooring access we enjoy today.
Sincerely,
The Board Of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https.Ilnewportmooringassociation. org
3 15-158
Newport
Summary List of Newport Mooring Association Recommendations:
1. Postpone this agenda item in favor of public stakeholder meetings
2. Collaborate with the NMA on a voluntary mooring relocation plan to straighten out mooring fields.
3. The City can adjust a few moorings by a few feet at minimal cost to straighten out some mooring rows.
4. The City can better utilize existing vacant moorings by setting establishing a longer term boat storage rate for subleasing moorings. The current sublease rate is set high for visiting short term boaters. Establishing a lower rate for longer term users will generate significant revenue and better utilize existing vacant moorings.
5. The City should encourage mooring contractors to use GPS technology to make sure moorings are replaced in exact locations when they are lifted for service.
6. The City and NMA can collaborate to have biannual service of mooring hardware accomplished during the same general time period for the various mooring fields (ex. J field in February, H field in March). This will allow the contractors to make sure everything is lined up nicely and may save contractor and permittees in mobilization costs because they will be working the same mooring field for several days in a row.
7. If one objective is to create more "Open Water" then do not add more moorings and boats. This will create less "Open Water".
0 15-159
Hermosa Beach Office Cj pc1 Y 1 Douglas P. Carstens
Phone: j310) 799-24W Email Address:
?
San Diego OFiiee
Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP [email protected] Phone: (858) 999-0070 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (619) 9404522 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcear(hiaw.com
November 8, 2022
VIA E-MAIL([email protected],
[email protected])
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
c/o Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re_ Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures Require Coastal Development Permit; November 9, 2022 Harbor
Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation, we are writing to inform the Harbor Commission that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") to proceed with its proposal to amend the City of Newport Beach Harbor Code (Municipal Code, Title 17, sections 17.25.020 and
17.60.040) in order to modify mooring procedures. The City's proposal to eliminate mooring extensions and conduct a pilot test constructing new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Further, the proposal would encourage unsafe navigation by large vessels in the mooring fields, and would impede coastal views. Thus, we urge the Harbor Commission to advise the City that it may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
I. The Coastal Conunission Has Original Jurisdiction Over the Mooring Fields.
The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of protecting recreational and commercial boating and fishing activities. (See Pub. Resources Code §§30224, 30234, 30234.5.) The City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ("LUP") also emphasizes the importance of maintaining access to moorings, with Policy 3.3.2-3 which states "Continue to 5 15-160
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low- cost public access to the water and harbor."
Though the City has adopted a Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission retains original jurisdiction for developments in the tidelands, public trust, and submerged lands. (Pub. Resources Code §30519, subd. (b); see City of Newport Beach's Post LCP Certification and Appeal Jurisdiction Map, available at:
https://www.newportbeachea.gov/PLN/LCPILCP Zoning/Mapsl21 80 045 Pe rmit and Appeal Jurs MapslOffcial CNB PostCert Map.pdf.) Thus, any development in the mooring fields at Newport Harbor, which are submerged lands, require review and approval by the Coastal Commission in the first instance.
II. The Proposed Revisions to the Harbor Code Eliminating Mooring Extensions Constitute Development and Require a Coastal Development Permit.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 17) constitute development under the Coastal Act. Under the Coastal Act, development includes, inter alia, "change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto." (Pub. Resources Code §30106; Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 250.) Under the existing Harbor Code, permittees may request mooring extensions for vessels longer than the assigned vessels, and extensions five feet or under may be granted by the Harbormaster without seeking approval from the Harbor Commission. (Newport Beach Municipal Code §17.60.040, subd. (M).) The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code drastically change this process by eliminating mooring extensions. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 59-60; November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment C, pp. 8-9.) These revisions will alter and impede the access of permitholders to moorings, thereby constituting development under the Coastal Act.
The proposed revisions state:
Requests for mooring extensions shall no longer be considered.
Instead, requests for a longer or extended mooring will require relocating to a larger mooring. The mooring permittee making the request shall pay a fee for the relocation request and shall 0 15-161
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
bear all costs of relocating their vessel and the displaced vessel.
Relocations will require payment of a fee and be contingent upon availability of a vacant mooring or another permittee in the same mooring field (or also an adjacent field in the case of moorings in the H and J fields) having a vessel in a mooring row that is designated for a length of at least 5-feet greater. In no event will relocations be considered for mooring lengths in excess of 5' of the current mooring length for the permittee making such request.
Authority to approve relocation requests shall lie with the Harbormaster.
(November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment A.) These revisions alter access to water because they will result in requests even for small, de minimus extensions to be considered as a request for relocation of a permittee's mooring. The location of a permittee's mooring is an important access consideration, because if a mooring is relocated far away from a permittee's dinghy location, it will be difficult for the permittee to access their mooring. Additionally, flipping any moorings where boaters have to now access the mooring in a downwind fashion will change access to and from moorings and make accessing a mooring more difficult as the operator will have less control. Finally, these revisions impose the cost of unnecessary relocations onto permittees and requires them to pay a relocation fee, which further impedes access to moorings and is contrary to LUP Policy 3.3.2-3 which requires provision of moorings as a source of "low- cost" access. These modifications to the public's access to moorings require review and approval by the Coastal Commission.
III. The Proposed Phase I Pilot Test Constitutes Development and Requires a Coastal Development Permit.
As part of the City's plan to reconfigure the Harbor, the City plans to conduct an initial reconfiguration of C Field (Phase I), with a pilot test constructing 3 to 6 double mooring systems in one row to verify engineering and functionality. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p.
86.) Under the Coastal Act, development includes "in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; [or] construction. . of any structure ...... (Pub. Resources Code §30601.) The construction of new moorings thus falls squarely within the definition of development, for 7 15-162
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Construction of new moorings during the pilot test will require installation and placement of new shared anchors, shackles, chains, and buoys within the mooring fields. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 48, 78.) As described above, development within the mooring fields is subject to the Coastal Commission's original jurisdiction and thus requires a Coastal Development Permit. Accordingly, the City cannot proceed with the Phase I pilot test without a Coastal Development Permit.
IV. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Encourage Unsafe Navigation of Large Vessels in the Mooring Fields.
The mooring fields as currently configured provides protection from larger vessels. We are concerned that the proposed mooring reconfiguration, which provides for wide, up to 100-foot fairways, would encourage navigation of large vessels in the mooring fields. This would both obstruct coastal access and create a safety concern for permittees operating small vessels, as well as for paddleboarders, kayakers, and others operating small human -powered vessels in the safe haven of the mooring fields. This goes against the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, which protect such activities. (Pub. Resources Code §§30211, 30220, 30224.) Marine life that frequent the harbor, such as dolphins, may also be impacted by the introduction of larger vessels. (See Pub. Resources Code §30230.)
The mooring areas in Newport Harbor are designated "Special Anchorages" by the Coast Guard. (33 C.F.R. § 110.95; see 77 Fed. Reg. 22489, available at: https-//www_goyinfo_gov/contentlpkglFR-2012-04-16lpdf/2012- 9006.pdf.} Special anchorage areas "should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels." (33 G.F.R. §109.10.) Thus, fairways that accommodate large vessels should not be located within the mooring fields.
V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.
We are also concerned with City staffs questionable assertion that the mooring reconfigurations would greatly improve harbor views. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p. 82_) The proposal to push mooring rows together will alter view corridors from the public boardwalk around Balboa Island (and other boardwalks in Newport Harbor). (See Pub. 0 15-163
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November S, 2022
Resources Code § 30251 ["The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance."]) The plan will also alter homeowner views of the harbor. While under the proposed reconfiguration, views maybe improved for same —those whose properties are fronted by a fairway --views may also be greatly worsened for others, including those whose properties are fronted by the proposed double - wide tandem rows of boats.
VI. Conclusion.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code present significant changes that would alter access to water and construct new moorings in the submerged mooring fields. The proposed mooring reconfiguration would encourage unsafe navigation of large vessels that impede coastal access for small-scale recreational boaters and others, and would obstruct coastal views.
Accordingly, the proposed mooring plan constitutes development under the Coastal Act and appears to be in conflict with the Coastal Act. As such, it must be reviewed for approval by the Coastal Commission. We request that the Harbor Commission, in fulfilling its charge, advise the City of these issues prior to making any recommendation.
Sincerely,
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
0 15-164
To. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
From. Capt. James L Haley
79 Dapplegray Lane
Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca. 90274
November 6, 2022
Dear Commissioners.
I have been asked by the Newport Mooring Association to give my expert opinion on the proposals contained in the published "Solution for Improved Safety and Utilization of Space and Adding New Moorings".
I have held a US Coast Guard License as Master Mariner since 1982, including First Class Pilotage, Unlimited Tonnage in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and employed as a pilot in the Port of Long Beach For the past 32 years. I have been admitted as an expert in numerous State and Federal courts as an expert in ship handling and navigation_ I have also been a recreational sail and power boat owner for over fifty years and a frequent user of moorings in Southern California. it is my opinion that any proposal that involves moving mooring rows closer together and forcing any vessels to approach or depart a savoring in a down wind fashion (relative to the prevailing winds) will create much greater risk of collision and injury and a less safe usage of the mooring arrangement.
It would be almost impossible to overstate the negative impacts of configuring moorings that are not approached as nearly bow into the prevailing winds as practical. The increased difficulty of approaching or departing any mooring or dock in a downwind direction would certainly increase risk of collision, ailision, damage to boats and injury to boaters. All authoritative books on seamanship or boat handling are in emphatic agreement on this simple point. The vast majority of sail vessels and many power boats are single engined, and have very limited steering or maneuverability when moving astern. Departing moorings downwind would be as nicely as approaches to result in boat collisions, allisions, damage and injuries.
The America's Cup harbor arrangement that has been offered as an example is not comparable to Newport for the simple reason that it is shielded from wind by the topography of Point Lorna and protected from tidal currents by virtue of being land locked on three sides. Newport, by contrast is surrounded by low land masses that do little to protect the mooring fields from prevailing winds, and tidal Currents flow unimpeded through the moorings as well.
The current proposal creates a less safe situation by moving alternate mooring rows within 20 feet of each other. Less space affords less reaction time and decreases space to maneuver to avoid collisions or allisions when boats inevitably experience a failed mooring attempt such as when the wind or current are greater than anticipated_ Page 84 of the October 12`' presentation indicates the distance between all mooring rows range from 41 to 65 feet with an average of 53ft in the "C' mooring f'se;d. In the new mooring plan, on page 85, it indicates alternate mooring rows will be moved closer and within 20 feet of each other. In my opinion, moving the mooring rows within 20 feet decreases the ability to safety maneuver, especially in the event of strong winds, a failed mooring attempt or mechanical failure. 10 15-165
Any changes to the existing mooring arrangement that has served the boating community quite well for decades should give the most 5eriOUS consideration to the input of the current permittees. Their experience is the best source of knoMedge about what works and what will create problems for then and their fellow boaters.
Please feel free to call me with any questions at (928) 713-6277 Sincerely,
Capt. James Maley
15-166
HARBOR COMMISSION OBJECTIVES TRACKING SHEET —Excerpted for Objective #2.3
2. Harbor Viability (Beer) - Matters pertaining to Assets, Amenities, and Access.
January 12, 2022
March 9, 2022
Apr# 13, =
Miry 12, 2022
Z.3 Evaluate the current mooring fields and
provide a recommendation for new guideline
that better define rows and fairways to improve
navigation, safety, and optimization of space I
within the mooring fields. (Beer] I
Nothing to teport-
to report.
to report_
NMA NOTES REGARDING TIMELINE
Chair Beer discussed this objml rye rn detail
ar in the meeting. He noted he rs warring for the Presented no substantive details of mooring plan audit to come in and will bring it back to the No harbor code revisions presented niic�inn i
13fird and t has been received. Further feedback
be requested of the Commission at next month's
Vice Chair Beer discussed this objecave In detail
June 8,2022 earlkr In the meeting. He brought before the Commission his draft plan for feedback.
Vlae Clair Bow has teowvwi rnrtormstion k— [ir
July 13, 2022 a " firm ano we provWe a mbra �+
updses at next 1. Wcnth'10 nmw"-
Vrce Chair Beer noted that he is waiting on the final
report from the City's contract engineer. Once he
August 10, 2022 receives that he can venfty the information and provide a report to the Commission -
September 14, 1022 Vice Chair Beer will provide a complete report of this objective at the next meeting_
Vice Chair Beer provided a complete report on
t3dober 12, 2022 Objective goal 2.3 for consideration by the Harbor November 9, 2022
December 14, 2022
12 I
Presented no substantive details of mooring ptan
No harbor code revisions presented
i
Presented slideshow of mooring field redesign
No harbor code revisions presented
[40 No updates, engineering report "com+ng"
i
40 Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
No harbor code revisions presented
40 Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
No harbor code revisions presented
FIRST PRESENTATION OF COMPLETE REPORT
FIRST SUBMISSION OF HARBOR CODE REVISIONS
15-167
From; "me andefane ,'Admin'
Cc: Dept - City Council [Cit Council newportbeachca,gov>, 'NMA Email Board' , "Miller, Chris" , "Jung,
Jeremy"
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Admin amail new ortmoorin association.or >
Cc: Dept - City Council ,'NMA Email Board'
tnmaboard indi oharbor.com>; Miller, Chris ¢CMiller@r�ewiportbeachca.�ov>; Jung, Jeremy [1Jun new ortbeachca. av>
Subject: Re: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hello Megan,
Attached herewith please find a copy of the initiai engineering study for the mooring field reconfiguration. Should you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please do not hesitate to respond back to me. Should you wish to discuss any of the information provided, or any other aspects of the project, please do not hesitate to let me know as I am happy to meet with you and/or the NMA board prior to the next scheduled Harbor Commission meeting where this item will likely be agendized for public comment.
As you know, this project is a part of the Harbor Commission's Open Water initiative intended to improve safety, navigation, create more moorings for public use and increase the usable space for mariners in Newport Harbor. I look forward for the opportunity to share any of the details with you, your board, and its members.
Best regards,
Harbor Commissioner
T� sheer�newQortbo�chta.onv
(949) 702-69M
From: "Beer, Ira" ¢1Beer new ortbeachca. ov>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:06 AM
To: Admin
Cc: Dept - City Council , 'NMA Email Board'
13 15-168
rnmaboard indi oharbor.com>, Harbor Commission
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:42 PM
To: "Beer, Ira" [email protected]}
Cc: Dept - City Council , 'NMA Email Board'
Subject: RE: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hi Ira,
First, congratulations on your reappointment to the Harbor Commission. It's quite a responsibility, and we are glad and thankful when volunteers step up to shoulder this level of work.
I appreciate your response to my question. lust so I understand exactly, your proposal for the mooring field reconfiguration is oniy a concept at this time — that the engineering, financial and feasibility analysis have not been started at this time? We had assumed that much of those analyses had been completed. I think that assumption has caused some confusion among the membership. 14 15-169
As it relates to the mooring fee increase, yes, that is a separate topic and a question for the Harbor Commission. I apologize that you interpreted it as being connected with the mooring reconfiguration Proposal. Can you or another Commissioner address that question? According to the Harbor Commission goals and other documents, we have assumed that the offshore mooring appraisal has been completed. And, as you know, this is a very explosive issue with all mooring permitees. Do you have any information on timing that you can share with us? Thanks again for all your time and effort!
Megan
From: Beer, Ira dBeer new ortbeachca. ova
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Meg andelane 'Admin` ; Harbor Commission
Subject: Re: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hello Medan,
Thank you for your email. This project is still in a review stage. The assumptions in the draft proposal, while based on prior discovery, are subject to engineering review not yet completed. 1 appreciate the questions from your board set forth in the email received on June 14, 2022. I am however struggling to see how they relate directly to what was presented at the June 8, 2022, Harbor Commission meeting. The purpose of the mooring initiative discussed and defined in item 2.3 of the Harbor Commission Objectives is to evaluate the current mooring fields and provide a recommendation for new guidelines that better define rows and fairways to improve navigation, safety, and optimization of space within the mooring fields. Economics of the proposal and mooring rate increases were not a part of the discussion or the primary subject matter of the Objective.
I would be happy to meet with you and the NIVA board in person or via Zoom to discuss what was presented and the items related thereto. Please let me know. Otherwise, i hope you will watch for when this topic is agendized at future Harbor Commission meetings as I and the Harbor Commission value your comments and any inp�jt you feel compelled to share. Fhank you.
Best regards,
Harbor Commissioner
z
..+,' (944) 702-6900
From: Wegandelaney@ ¢hr_legartdelaneyC
Date: Monday, June 27, 2022 at 4:17 PM
To.-'Admin' ¢mail new Portmoor! n associatiori.or >, Harbor Commission 15 15-170
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: RE: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees To Commissioner Beer and the Harbor Commissioners —
We haven't heard nay response to our email of June 14t" . Can you give us any update you have on the harbor reconfiguration? What are your next steps?
Thank you,
The NMA Board of Directors
Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners
Newport Mooring Association
P.D. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mail QNew ortM oo ringiAssociation.or
From; Admin email@nQwportm4orinaassociat[on or
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3.30 PM
To: —Ha r>SorCommission Pnewportheachca aov
Cc: Dept - City Council ECitycouncil�}A newDortbeachca.Rav>; NMA Email Board cnmaboard_@ind igoharbor,com>
Subject: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees To Commissioner Beer and the Harbor Commissioners.
At the June 811 Harbor Commission meeting, Commissioner Beer presented his new mooring system proposal. The proposal involves realigning the mooring fields, instalfing a new anchoring system, and having a shared mooring on one end of the two -point mooring systems. To better understand the proposed changes to the mooring system, we would like to review any supporting documents for the presentation, and we have the following questions:
1. Has this mooring reconfiguration been approved by City Management? Or is this stiff in a conceptual phase?
2. What financial analysis has been performed - revenues and expenditures, investment and payback - for the extensive capital and services outlay to implement this revised system? We have noted that this new project doesn't seem to appear in the proposed FY2022-23 budget document.
3_ if the City pays for the new hardware, we believe the City will assume the liability when a boat breaks loose from any new system or when the new system causes damage to a vessel, if the City installs and owns the new system, what is the City's exposure for accidents caused by the new system? How will the City manage the assumption of liability?
16 15-171
4. We would like to review the engineering analysis on the specific hardware being proposed for the shared mooring system. The proposed solution is far more rigid with greatly reduced catenary (thus reduced shock absorbing potential) between a vessel and the mooring anchor to limit movement of the boats, and we are very concerned about the potential stresses on boat cleats and other attachments. We are also concerned with how the system will perform under the heavy Santa Ana winds we have in Newport Beach.
5. Does this project require any approvals from the Coastal Commission? Does it require an Environmental Impact Report? Does it require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to move forward? Have any of these documents been completed at this time?
6. What type of "proof of concept" or trial moorings for implementation is being considered? Has Commissioner Beer identified areas that will be implemented first? What is the proposed Vmeframe for the implementation?
7. Was there an incident or a series of accidents that prompted the safety concerns that drove this proposal? We are concerned that the shared moorings make it more difficult to get a vessel on and off the mooring, and as previously discussed, may cause other issues and potential damage to vessels.
8. It should be noted that Commissioner Beer's earlier study from 2020 had identified a plan for a mooring realignment for safer fairways that now appears to have been abandoned for this far more complex reconfiguration.
Mooring Rate Increases - In addition to our questions on this new mooring configuration proposal, when we will next hear about the onshore/offshore mooring rates and appraisal? We assume that the offshore mooring appraisal has been completed Our members are very concerned and want to be prepared to discuss the new proposed rates.
We would like to reiterate the NMA's willingness to work collaboratively on policy and procedures that affect our harbor.
Thank you,
The NMA Board of Directors
Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mai[ New ortMoorio Association_ar
17 15-172
Wednesday October 26, 2022
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Paul Blank, Harbormaster
Dear Commissioner Beer:
I would like to thank you and Harbormaster Blank for meeting with Jerry LaPointe and me on October 20, for an initial preliminary meeting to answer some questions about the proposal to move almost all the offshore moorings and/or boats on the moorings. As mentioned at the meeting, this was intended to be an initial meeting to answer some questions to be followed by a second meeting with you, other commissioners, and the NMA.
At this initial meeting we asked for your personal assurance that any proposal to change Title 17 not be voted on at the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting, but instead postponed to allow the NMA and stakeholders to study the new proposal, and allow time for the City to send notice to all the stakeholders, including permit holders, followed by one or more stakeholder meetings. As stated previously, the NMA does not think it is appropriate to make any changes to Title 17 at this time. Certainly, a six boat trial test of a new concept in mooring layout and design does not require a Title 17 rewrite. Let's ask for volunteers instead of mandating that permittees cooperate. However, since Title 17 changes may need to happen eventually, we are hereby giving you our initial modifications to your earlier proposed language changes.
While the NMA does have a list of permittees, it is not as up to date or complete as the City's list, and it is our personal view that a mailing should not be placed on the shoulders of the NMA. We also requested that you ask other Commissioners if the matter could be placed on the agenda as a discussion item only, and not as an item to be voted on. We asked that you let us know as soon as possible to avoid our having to notify as many people as possible that the proposals in current form would be voted on at the November 9 meeting.
At the meeting you indicated the proposed changes to Title 17 were being made and that there was a deadline for us to comment on the changes. You indicated that you would try to provide us with these changes on Friday October 21, although you were not sure if that could be done and you might only be able to provide your work notes outlining the changes. You requested that we provide our comments on the Title 17 proposed and revised changes by the end of the day, Wednesday October 26. At approximately noon on Monday Oct 24 (two days ago), you sent the Title 17 revised changes in a pdf file. Yesterday I attempted to "convert" that file and gather comments from a few people on the NMA Board in order to meet the deadline of today. We understand that it was difficult to provide us with the new proposed changes before they were sent, and we ask you to appreciate the fact that putting together our views in a day and a half on the proposed revised Title 17 changes sent in a pdf file format, with the need to consult with numerous people, most of whom are working full time, is a difficult task.
At this preliminary meeting, in addition to discussing the timing and need for stakeholder meetings after notice is mailed, we expressed concerns and asked questions about placing the bow of boats within 20 feet from the bow or stern of another boat. We discussed in general concerns over safety, the difficulty in securing a boat to a mooring with another boat so close even when using a spreader line to help. We asked questions about where each mooring would be relocated and the need for each permit holder to know where their mooring would be relocated. We asked about the best way m
15-173
to keep multiple buoys attached to the same anchor or weight system as far apart as possible, and we asked about how to best study a theoretical reconfiguration in real life conditions. This is not intended to cover all the questions and matters discussed, but just a few that come to mind.
Again, with just a day and a half to provide some comments on the Title 17 changes, attached are some concepts. I have tried to put this in a format that is "readable" but it was difficult to work with the color coded pdf files that were sent to us.
I attempted to show our changes and modifications of your proposal by placing them in bold 14 point font with yellow highlight. Some of the words embedded in the highlight might have been in the original or in the proposed revisions.
To make it somewhat easier to follow the highlighted modifications, here is some background and additional comments. The letters refer to the corresponding Title 17 document letters.
Note: The version originally sent on Oct 26 to meet the deadline contained formatting errors, including some items that appear to be "strikeout" but are either embedded line of boxes that should have been removed and also at least one date error. Most of these embedded lines and boxes have been removed in the items noted as attachments.
17.25.020
F. Safety, safety and safety. The highlighted modifications attempt to make clear what should be otherwise obvious, that any new system or reconfiguration would first require proof of being safe without materially increasing the difficulty in getting on and off a mooring, particularly for elderly and disabled boaters and sailors under all wind, tide, and current conditions (over and above the existing level of difficulty in the same conditions). We do not think any responsible person would have difficulty with that concept, but without it being expressly stated in the code changes, when we are on the verge of a massive change in all parts of the harbor affected by winds and currents in a different way, this needs to be expressly stated and not just "implied".
Much of the discussion that follows, but not all, concerns what we generally call the two -buoy type of mooring.
F. 2. Spreader lines. Spreader lines are a good idea, but Harbormaster should be able to determine the different types of lines used. Spreader lines serve a number of functions in addition to warning other boaters of a mooring with a spreader line. They are often used to temporarily tie onto a cleat on a boat, and would need to be of the appropriate size for the cleat. There are much stronger lines of smaller diameter that float and last longer when exposed to the sun. The Harbormaster should be able to handle this.
G. Sand Lines. If the use of sand lines (aka mud lines) is being considered in some situations, the Harbormaster should determine if the mud on which the line will sit for days is contaminated. If contaminated, when picking up the line, the contaminated mud will get on skin and clothes, and may cause heath concerns. We do not know if the City has tested the mud under all the mooring fields.
17.60.040
19 15-174
B. Issuance of Permit. There is a lot of concerns about confusion in the documents between "existing moorings" and "newly created moorings". This is both a technical drafting issue, but is also a public relations and stakeholder issue. Some of the changes are just to clarify what appears to be the intent, in particular that transferability is not changing for existing permits, and a transferee after transfer will have the same right. To help make this clear, we have included definitions of New Moorings and Existing Moorings, among other ways to make it clearer.
B. 2. Permit Requirements
J. Authorization to Move.
Currently, Title 17 allows when "necessary" to move boats (not moorings). Historically, that has been interpreted to mean moving boats on a temporary basis to accommodate maintenance, dredging, etc. The proposed new language still refers to moving boats (vessels) but adds that this can be done when not necessary, and includes the reconfiguration of the entire mooring fields when there have been zero instances of any reported accidents or other issues with the existing configuration over 100 years of mooring use. We understand that some members of the Harbor Commission have a vision of a tidier Harbor and may have an aesthetic vision that boats in perfect rows make a nicer water view. However others may differ on this and find the more natural view of boats swaying naturally in the harbor is the more pleasing view. No painter has ever painted boats lined up like in a parking lot, yet there are tens of thousands of paintings of boats sitting naturally in a harbor. The NMA does not think the current system needs to be radically changed. At the very least, there needs to be stakeholder meetings after a mailing describing proposed changes. There needs to be opportunities to be heard by all those impacted, and also extensive study of real world usage of the suggested new configuration before any changes are made to Title 17. If changes are ultimately made to Title 17 allowing for the future moving of boats or moorings, under some different plan of reconfiguration, then the same type of stakeholder meetings, safety, and accessibility studies should be a prerequisite of such major changes.
In the event that any Title 17 changes are made to allow for reconfigurations, despite the fact that it is not needed, we would address some of the conditions on what should be imposed to address safety, potential difficulty of use, accessibility for the old and disabled, and fairness of location. We have also tried to address what appears to be major confusion in the proposed language as it relates to moving boats vs moving moorings.
Moving Boats vs Moving Moorings.
Much of the proposed language changes refers to moving boats or moving vessels. We believe this does not fit with any proposal that in effect is an attempt to move moorings into certain rows. Here are a few examples of the havoc that would result in referring to moving boats vs moving moorings. Permit holder Joe, who has a 50 foot mooring Z-12 (there is no Z field it is used as an example only), and Joe at one time had his 46 foot boat called Joes Dream on the mooring. Joe sold his boat and acquired a 34 foot sailboat, Joes Folly, to use to race in the Thursday afternoon races. Joes Folly is now on Z-12, but in three or four years, Joes knows he may give up sailboat racing given his age and he plans to put another 46 foot powerboat back on Z-12. Under the proposed authorization, the Harbormaster can move Joes Folly to some other, smaller mooring, and 20 15-175
move someone else's 50 foot boat onto Z-12. Under the proposed plan, as I understand it and which refers to moving boats, we could have the following scenario: Joe will pay for the 50 foot mooring (that he is not using), Joe will pay to maintain the 50 foot mooring (that he is not using), and Joe will have no say in how his new mooring is being maintained, as some other mooring permittee will be on his 50 foot mooring. However in a few years when he sell's Joes Folly, and buys a 46 foot trawler Joe's Last Boat, he will have not a place to put the retirement boat of his dreams.
Here's another example: Joe's uncle, Sam, owns the mooring next to Joe and he follows the harbor scuttlebutt closely. Right now his 40-foot mooring Z-11 is usually vacant, although he occasionally puts an old 16 foot skiff on it for occasional use. Hearing what is going on and planning to buy another boat a few years from now, he goes out and buys the cheapest 40 foot boat he can, just to have a "place holder" so he will have a place to put his new boat in three or four years, and no one will be moved in the meantime to his underutilized 40 foot mooring.
These are only two of a thousand different situations that could come up over time in the lifetime of a boater. People do change boats.
To avoid all of this confusion, the language addresses the issue directly and speaks directly about moving moorings and under what situations and conditions that would be appropriate. While the NMA believes there is clearly no need and no necessity to do that on a wholesale basis, there may be some areas in the harbor where it makes sense. With this in mind we have offered language that would address this and have added safeguards that would discourage potential abuse, while at the same time increasing safety, and avoiding creating difficulties of use and accessibility. The language allows for transparency and mandates the use of appropriate stakeholder meetings, and some checks and balances, including ultimate approval by the City Council.
B.2.1 Transfer of Permit / Permit Requirements
These are mostly technical clarifications, to make clear the status of a transferee of an "Existing Permit" and the status of a second name on the mooring permit as having a different status that does not create a "transfer" and provides a method to remove the second named person.
M. Request to Extend Mooring Length or Relocate to Larger Mooring.
Extensive changes were needed here, which are too many to summarize. These changes are made in an attempt to avoid some of the issues discussed above regarding moving boats vs moving moorings. For example, if a 50 foot boat on a 50 foot mooring is moved to a 60 foot row (by for example a private sale), or for realignment purposes a 50 foot mooring is placed in a 60 foot row, perhaps because it was on the end of a row and the only end of row mooring available is in a 60 foot row, the person with the 50 foot boat should not lose his or her mooring and be subject to relocation of boat or mooring. Moreover, if after a few years, the person with the 50 foot boat, sells the boat and asks to allow his new 52 foot boat to be on his mooring and asks for his 50 foot mooring, which is in the 60 foot row to be extended to a 55 foot mooring, he or she should at least be allowed to make the request, and the Harbormaster and/or the Harbor Commission should be allowed to address the request on a case by case basis so long as the boat will be well within the length limits of the row. The proposed changes take into account the different type of situations, and avoids the "move the boat only" without moving the mooring issues, discussed in detail above. 21 15-176
As a final note, because of the edits, re-edits, and conversions from pdf files to Word files, some of the internal numbers and cross references may need to be adjusted.
We of course would have preferred more than one and a half days to address the major proposed changes, as revised, to Title 17, and we are hopeful that we will have the time and opportunity to work with the Harbor Commission to come up with reasonable and appropriate changes through transparency and with safety, usability, and accessibility in mind.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Z scoff /ieK
and the
Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https://newportmooringassociation . org
Attachments:
First Attachment:
17.25.020 Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations.
A. Location. No person having charge of any vessel shall berth or anchor the same in Newport Harbor except within designated areas. Any vessel which is berthed, moored or anchored at a place not designated for such vessel shall be moved as directed by the Harbormaster. In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas, consideration shall be given to the needs of commerce, the utilization of turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space. No vessels shall be moored or anchored in any part of any turning basin or channel unless secured both fore and aft except as provided in subsection (H) of this section. Every vessel moored or anchored in any part of the harbor outside of any turning basin or channel shall be so moored or anchored as to prevent such vessel from swinging or drifting into any turning basin or channel.
1. No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any vessel shall:
a. Berth or anchor the same in Newport Harbor except within the designated areas; or b. Anchor a vessel in any of Newport Harbor's designated public anchorage areas or at any location on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean within five hundred (500) yards of a designated protected swimming area for a cumulative period of time that exceeds seventy-two (72) hours within any thirty (30) calendar day period. The Harbormaster may authorize, in writing, an extension to the seventy-two (72) hour time limit if the Harbormaster determines that given the particular circumstances an extension of time is reasonable and warranted.
2. Any vessel which is berthed, moored or anchored at a place in Newport Harbor not designated for such vessel shall be moved as directed by the Harbormaster. In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas in Newport Harbor, consideration shall be given to the needs of 22 15-177
commerce, the utilization of turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space.
B. Application of Chapter. The terms of this chapter, as they relate to moorings and buoys, shall apply to "on -shore moorings" which are moorings located landward of the pierhead line and to "offshore moorings" which are located bayward of the pierhead line, with equal force and effect.
C. Berthing.
1. Boats berthed at private or public piers shall not extend beyond the prolongation of the side property lines of the property or properties to which the pier is connected in accordance with Section 17.35.020.
2. Any boat berthed at a pier or slip shall not extend bayward beyond the end of the pier or slip by a distance of more than the maximum width of its beam. Between Bulkhead Station 256, beginning at Collins Avenue to Bulkhead Station 255, boats moored at a pier or slip shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet bayward beyond the end of the pier or slip or more than the width of the beam of the boat, whichever is less.
D. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct or maintain a pier mooring or buoy in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands without first having obtained a permit pursuant to this title.
E. Unauthorized Use of Mooring. No person shall use a mooring unless he or she holds a current and valid permit except with the permission of the Harbormaster for temporary use, as herein provided.
F. Chains and Fastenings of.#el+x Anchor Mooring System. Offshore moorings in the City's mooring _ fields which are designed to secure a boat with two anchors, one secured to the bow and one to the stern, may, at the direction of the City, consist of:
Aneherweight��zVeaYs ..•veSS919sfii"Ti0,-e Znfin Tir IJL`he mooring in all wind, tide, and current conditions in the particular field and area where the boat will be moored, including the vessel safely being secured to the mooring without undue difficulty when approaching and leaving the mooring by persons of all ages and persons with disabilities consistent with the Americans with Disability Act and the California State Unruh and Disabled Person's Act ); ortwo separate anchor weights for each vessel, If moorings in a field are reconfigured to be closer to other moorings in a field either side to side or fore or aft, such reconfiguration shall first proven to be safe for the use of the moorings in all wind, tide, and current conditions in the particular field and area where the boat will be moored, including the vessel safely being secured to the mooring without undue difficulty when approaching and leaving the mooring by persons of all ages and persons with disabilities consistent 23 15-178
with the Americans with Disability Act and the California State Unruh and Disabled Persons Act.
Mooring permittees shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing all anchor system components, including but not limited to, allchains, shackles, weights, lines, buoys and all other gear and equipment used in securing their vessels to the mooring.
If the City has installed a helical anchor system for use as the shared anchor mooring system. the City shall maintain, repair, and replace only the shared helical anchor at its cost.
1. No person shall erect, construct or maintain any mooring in Newport Harbor unless all chains and fastenings are of sufficient size to stand a breaking strain of at least six times the weight of the mooring.
2. All mooring lines on buoys (excluding a Spreader Line as described below) shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately sink.
All double or two -point moorings that are equipped with two mooring buoys for mooring to both bow and stern, are at all times required to have (i) a vessel properly tied to both mooring buoys, or (ii) a single" polypropylene line of a diameter approved by the Harbor Master for that sized boat and mooring, secured and connected to both the bow and stern buoys, or other floating line, or of another size or type approved by the Harbor Master. The line shall be no longer than five feet plus the length of the mooring and equipped with 9" long two-color buoys affixed in -place to the line that are no less than ten feet apart from each other, (the "Spreader Line"), and (iii) two lines that are appropriately sized and specified for attachment to each mooring buoy that will be secured one each to the port and starboard cleats at each the bow and stern at all times the vessel is occupying the mooring space, and (iv) maintained the Spreader Line keeping it clean from algae and other marine growth to prevent the line from submerging below the surface and not remaining easily visible to other approaching mariners.
G. Sand Line Moorings. With the approval of the Harbormaster, mMooring permittees may use a single to the nnnncing anrhnr lino Tha Sanri I inP shall hp prripPrly waightPri to immariiataly cink whan dr-PP-d The permittee must wbmit a Mooring Mndifirat*nn Rea., lest to the Harbormastiar and shall include details of the modification (including diagrams, if requested)., The Harbormaster may approve the request based upon his or her determination that the modification will result in any safety or navigational concerns, and prior to approving said use of any sand line, the Harbormaster shall consider if the upper 12 inches of the bottom soil that the sand line will contact is contaminated which may make contact with the sand line in any place that which may come into contact with a person handling the sand line through the skin or by inhalation. If the Harbormaster becomes aware of such contamination, the
24 15-179
Harbormaster shall report the information to both the Harbor Commission, the City Council and the City Manager.
G. Buoy Markings. Mooring buoys shall be painted with the number allocated thereto by the Harbormaster to the mooring, the numeral(s) of which shall be at least three inches in height.
H. Mooring, Anchoring and Vessel Condition Requirements.
1. Mooring ""Anchoring and Mooring. All vessels anchored on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure. All vessels anchored in Newport Harbor in the designated anchorage area shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure and does not extend beyond the demarcation line of the designated anchorage area. All vessels using moorings in Newport Harbor shall be firmly anchored to a mooring from bow and stern in such a manner as to prevent the vessel from swinging, turning or excessive drifting, except in areas designated by the Harbormaster as single mooring areas. Vessels in single mooring areas shall be tied from the bow. A vessel's Adjusted LOA shall not exceed the designated length of its mooring row. At no time may any portion of the vessel or object attached to the vessel extend into the fairway. All vessels anchored in Newport Harbor in the designated anchorage area shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure and does not extend beyond the demarcation line of the designated anchorage area.
h. Violation of the terms and conditions of other use or rental permits as granted by the 2.
Vessel Condition. Safety, Seaworthiness and Operability. Vessels assigned to a mooring by permit must be maintained in a safe, seaworthy and operable condition. If, based upon the appearance of the vessel, inspection by the City or other facts, the Harbormaster has cause to believe a vessel is not safe, seaworthy and operable, the Harbormaster shall give written notice to the permittee, in accordance with the service requirements of Section
1.05.030, requesting a demonstration that the vessel is safe, seaworthy and operable. The permittee shall, upon written notice specifying the date and time, demonstrate to the Harbormaster that the vessel assigned to the mooring is safe, seaworthy or operable. In the event that the Harbormaster determines that vessel is not safe, seaworthy or operable, the permittee shall:
a. Commence repairs within thirty (30) calendar days upon service of the written notice of such determination and complete repairs within ninety (90) calendar days of the commencement unless the Harbormaster, upon written request from the permittee specifying the reasons therefor, approves an extension of time to complete the repairs; or b. Remove the vessel within thirty (30) calendar days of service of the written notice of such determination and request assignment of a different vessel that is safe, seaworthy and operable to the mooring within sixty (60) calendar days after the removal of the vessel. This section is not intended to apply to any brief period of repair common to most vessels. The Harbormaster may repeat his or her request to test operability and seaworthiness as needed.
3. Vessel Condition —Public Nuisance. No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any vessel shall maintain, permit, cause or allow to exist on such vessel any of the 25 15-180
following conditions:
a. Promotion of fire hazard, including, but not limited to, improperopen fuel storage, deficiencies in the vessel's fuel storage tanks, inoperable electrical systems, storage of combustible or other flammable material that constitutes a fire hazard to any vessel;
b. Retention of water that becomes stagnant, unsanitary, or polluted; C. Accumulation or storage of rubbish, trash, debris, rubble, containers, or boxes that are visible aboard the vessel or stored inside the vessel in such a way as to make the vessel inoperable for its intended use;
d. Storage or securing a vessel in such away that it impedes pedestrian travel on City beaches and tidelands;
e. Contribution to hazards to public safety or health, such as, but not limited to: propagation of vermin, rats, insects, or unsanitary conditions from the accumulation of fecal materials; f. Maintenance in such nonseaworthy condition that the vessel is unsafe, unsightly or poorly maintained, including, but not limited to: broken windows, unsecured doors or hatches, excessive marine growth attached to the vessel, being inoperable for the vessel's intended use, partially destroyed or partially repaired for more than three continuous months, providing access to marine mammals, actively seeping hazardous or toxic material into the surrounding waters, or would present a physical danger to public safety personnel during emergency access;
g. Operation of its mechanical or electrical systems creates excessive noise, odors, vibrations, fumes, discharges or emissions that constitute an impact on public health or safety; i. Allowance of repetitive, boisterous or unruly conduct by the vessel operator or occupants when that conduct:
i. Is offensive to a person of ordinary sensibility, and ii. Continues after a written or oral request to terminate the conduct, or iii. Is offensive to a considerable number of people;
j. Anchorage in an area controlled by the City without adequate anchor(s) rope or chain appropriate for the wind and sea conditions encountered in Newport Bay; k. Inability of a vessel on a shore mooring to be self-righting on an incoming tide without flooding the vessel;
I. Attachment to a mooring in such a way that the vessel regularly drifts or impedes safe navigation in Newport Bay; or
m. Installation of a marine sanitation device that is not connected directly to an internal holding tank at all times while in Newport Bay.
Violation of this subsection (H) is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. In the event that the City determines that a vessel is a public nuisance, the City may commence public 26 15-181
nuisance abatement as provided in this title.
4. If, based upon the appearance of the vessel, inspection by the City or Harbormaster or other facts, the Harbormaster determines that a sea lion has boarded a moored vessel, the Harbormaster shall issue and serve a notice of violation in accordance with Section 1.05.030 and the permittee shall take any and all necessary action to employ and maintain appropriate measures to deter sea lions from boarding the vessel within seven calendar days of the notice of violation. If the Harbormaster determines that appropriate deterrent measures have not been taken within seven calendar days of the notice of violation, the Harbormaster may issue an administrative citation or take any other enforcement action authorized by this Code. In the event the Harbormaster issues an administrative citation, the permittee shall:
a. Take any and all necessary action to employ and maintain appropriate sea lion deterrent measures; or
b. Remove the vessel from Newport Harbor.
"Appropriate deterrent measures" shall be defined as the latest methodology permitted by National Marine Fisheries Service to minimize sea lion boarding of vessels assigned to a mooring. If the City is unable to reach the permittee within the seven calendar days, the Harbormaster may install temporary deterrent measures as needed and recover the City's cost of compliance.
I. Maintenance. All moorings shall be kept in good and serviceable condition in the location assigned by the Harbormaster.
J. Specifications. Specifications for the size of chains required on moorings, and weights of moorings, and all other mooring equipment shall be as adopted by resolution of the Fib;! Harbor Commission. No person shall erect, construct or maintain any mooring in Newport Harbor unless all chains and fastenings are of sufficient size to stand a breaking strain of at least six times the weight of the mooring. All mooring lines on buoys shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately
sink. With a double mooring, however, it shall be permissible to connect two mooring lines with a spreader line having floats attached thereto to keep such line afloat when the mooring is unoccupied.
K. Inspection of Moorings. Each mooring shall be lifted by the owner for inspection by the Harbormaster at least once every two years and shall be repaired, as necessary, so as to be in good condition before being replaced; provided, that the Harbormaster may require any mooring to be lifted at any time when deemed necessary to assure it is in good condition. If the permittee has such lifting performed by a marine contractor, then the Harbormaster may authorize such contractor to inspect the mooring on behalf of the Harbormaster and certify the results to the Harbormaster in writing. The permittee shall pay the costs of any inspection performed by a contractor on behalf of the Harbormaster.
L. Rental Not Permitted. Except as authorized in Section 17.60.040(B)(1)(a), no mooring may be leased or rented by the permittee to another person except with the written permission of the Harbormaster.
M. Administration. The Harbormaster shall administer all provisions in this section. 27 15-182
N. Reconfiguration of Moorings.
1. No plan, and no amended or modified plain, of reconfiguration of moorings within a mooring field shall be adopted or enacted without advanced notice first sent bmy mail, and if the City has email addresses, by emails to all stakeholders who may be affected by said plan followed by an opportunity for comments and two or more stakeholder meetings allowing for open and reasonable comments and discussions with the persons or agency whohow-have the authority to adopt, or advise on the adoption or enactment of the plan.
Stakeholders would include mooring permittees, residences located within 1,000 feet of the high tide line of any part of the mooring fields) subject to the proposal, and other stakeholders thatey might be impacted by the proposals, including homeowner associations and other organizations whose members include other stakeholders such as the Lido Island Homeowner's Association, the Balboa
Homeowner's Association, Newport Harbor Yacht Club, Balboa Yacht Club, and the other Yacht Clubs in Newport Harbor, If the plan is not adopted or enacted
within 9 months of said stakeholder meeting, then any resubmission of the plan or similar plan, shall be subject to the same required stakeholder meetings before adoption or enactment.
2. Following said stakeholder meetings, any plan of reconfiguration of moorings within a mooring field that is advised by, adopted by, or enacted by the Harbor Commission or by the Harbormaster or any of its agents or committees shall be first subject to the approval of the City Council after first being placed on the regular agenda of the City Council that allows for public comment (not on the City Council's consent calendar).
3. Plan of reconfiguration of -a -moorings as referred to above, shall include Moving moorings to different areas within a mooring field or to a different mooring field, moving moorings closer together either to the side or in front or to the back, moving moorings which would have an affect (negatively or positively) on views from homes, residences, or street ends, within 11000 feet m
15-183
of the high tide mark where moorings may be moved or relocated.
Second Attachment:
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 is in the nature of license for the temporary use of a specific location within Newport Harbor.
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). In the event that the City is able to
and does create new Moorings on or after JanUar'y 1, 2022 [ Error— Should be January 1, 20231, then the City may use such new Moorings (referred to herein as "New Moorings" for the purpose of long term rentals for recreational boat use or may issue a permit, similar to existing permits, for such use. If a Mooring permit is issued or a long term rental is issued each s shall be issued according to a lottery, followed by a waiting list. 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 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.
1. 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)(h) 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 to
15-184
Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1st. b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the assigned live -aboard vessel. c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor. An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable standards and those set forth in Section 17.05.140(D) (1).
2. Permit Requirements. Each mooring permit may be issued for up to two persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. Mooring permits shall be subject to the following conditions and requirements, with which mooring permittee(s) shall fully comply: To the satisfaction of the Harbormaster, the mooring permittee(s) shall:
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 30 15-185
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
,
+e
iIRc�ea
impFeving
,
the
+hp
SHqa-dnd
Y,- ., a fil.dc r,.J
Sarccy-vF
- rlA +O
.,
ucm'cut�vrra-rra
,n . , ++ve�s
be
eFgaR ZatieR Af
e that s eh
;hall
at the
exp e Rse—@a
j. Authorize the City, or its designee, to move the vessel on the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster on a temporary basis in the interest of safety, dredging, public works project, or similar necessities at the City's expense, unless the boat owner, or operator, or mooring permittee is in violation of one or more regulations applying to boats or moorings, in which case said move shall be at the expense of both the boat owner and the mooring permittee.
Authorize the City, or its designee to relocate a mooring to a new location on a one-time basis only, within a mooring field, in accordance with a plan of reconfiguration first approved under the following conditions:
1. The clan of reconfieu ration which includes the field has been anaroved by both the Harbor Commission and the Citv Council after proven safety of, lack of difficulty of use of, and accessibility of moorings affected by the reconfiguration, and after stakeholder meetings following reasonable notice by mail to the stakeholders both before and after the study and real life testing in different wind, current and tide conditions in representative areas each of the mooring fields.
2. The new location be as close as Possible to the old location, except as may be approved by the permittee,
15-186
3. The new location for moorings which historically did not have a permanent mooring assigned to another permittee behind or in front of it shall be a similar type of mooring, and the new location for beginning or end of row moorings shall also be either an end or beginning of row mooring, unless otherwise approved by the permittee, and moorings that are within the service area of shore boat service by a yacht club, such as BYC or NHYC, shall not be moved to a location outside the area of shore boat service. k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or his designee, to board the permittee's vessel at anytime to inspect the condition and opera biIityofthem arine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in accordance with applicable laws.
I. If a single mooring permit holder has requested, or will request, a second name to be added as a permit holder for the mooring, the original permittee who made the request will be the "Primary Permittee" and the second permit holder is the "Second Permittee." The addition of, or creation of, an additional permit holder does not result in a transfer of the mooring permit. The Primary Permittee, or his or her successor in interest, such as a person obtaining the permit by inheritance, shall have the right to remove the Second Permittee as a permittee. Following such removal, the Second Permittee shall remain liable for any violations of any City Code or regulations during the time the Second Permittee was a permittee.
3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by a natural person(s) holding title to an assigned vessel. Mooring permits that were issued before >, including the subsequent transfer of such permit to another natural person(s), may be held by, or transferred to, only the following persons:
a. A natural person(s) holding title to an assigned vessel; 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 the period of time prior to distribution of the estate;
c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. An approved transferee whose vessel and/or mooring permit are subject to any of the 32 15-187
terms and conditions stated in subsection (E) of this section;" Immediate family," which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree of consanguinity; e. 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);
f. 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
g. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 2011.
C. Plans and Specifications Required. No mooring permit shall be issued for placing, erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or buoy is constructed:
1. In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by the Harbormaster and at a location approved by the Harbormaster; or
2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring or buoy which have been submitted by the applicant, showing the construction of such proposed mooring or buoy together with the location thereof, and which meet the requirements established in this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbormaster.
D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05.120.
E. Transfer of Permit. New Mooring Permits (permits for the use of a New Mooring as defined issued or in existence with the sole exception of mooring permits that were issued on or before January 1, 2022 [Error should be January 1, 2023) are transferable in accordance with the regulations set forth herein. above, (Moorings issued for the first time on or after January 1.2022 [Error should sai January 1, 20231 ) to a new permit holder "New Permit") Mooring permits are shall be non -transferable. Existing Permits. which are mooring permits to an existing permit holder or the holder's transferee, which permits were In the event an additional name is added to an Existing Permit does not change the 33 15-188
character of the permit which shall still be considered an Existing Permit under these regulations, and the periodic return and signing of a questionnaire or similar request for updated information regarding a mooring or vessel on the mooring, which may ask for an acknowledgement that the permittee has read the mooring regulations, is not, and does not result in the issuance of a New Permit.
ir7� :7.7T.1 ir1. L7��ai�e
No mooring permittee shall transfer a permit for a mooring or buoy granted under the provisions of this chapter, except:
w#i
heirs of law to the seGe nd-degree OfGGRsa Rgi iinifir Gr c9 rrvarrga�vr
1. Except when transferred to immediate family, a mooring permit may only be transferred der this s„hsen+ier, „r t9 „r,e time once in any twelve (12) month period, but additional transfers shall be allowed after that, but only once, in any twelve (12) month period..
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 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 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 34 15-189
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. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with 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; 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.
7. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed by the City.
8. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit, subject to 35 15-190
the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee imposed by the City.
9. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of the mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third party's website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit transfers.
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 (13)(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 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:
36 15-191
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, or its designee, 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 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 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;
2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)(7) and (8) of this section; or
3. The transfer is made pursuant to under subsection (E)(1) (B)(3)(d)) of this section (immediate family).
37 15-192
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 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. Should a mooring revert back to the City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, 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 asset 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 maybe publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City purposes.
Request to Extend Mooring Length or to Relocate to Larger Mooring. m
15-193
1. Review Authority. No mooring lengths shall be extended beyond the designated mooring length for any mooring row; or that will result in extending into or impeding upon any portion of the adjacent fairway(s) to the mooring or otherwise create safety concerns.
2. If a permittee requests or obtains an assignment of a smaller vessel to the mooring and the smaller vessel has a LOA that is equal to or less than the designated length for the row, neither the mooring or the vessel will not be subject to relocation because it is smaller than the designated length for vessels in its row.
3. Handling of Requests.
a. Move to Different Mooring and Row. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that is or will be longer than the assigned vessel and which will extend beyond the designated mooring length for the mooring row, an application request to relocate the mooring shall be submitted to the Harbormaster for consideration and at his or her discretion, may approve the request to relocate to a larger mooring if an appropriate -sized mooring to be exchanged with a mooring in the same mooring field with the consent of the permittee of the other mooring. If the relocation is approved, the existing offshore mooring permit(s) shall be amended to reflect (i) the new assigned mooring location(s), and (ii). the extension of the vessel occupancy length to accommodate a longer vessel up to a maximum of five additional feet in accordance with this subsection, and up to the maximum length of the new row with the approval of the Harbor Commission.
b. Extension within Conforming Row. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that is or will be longer than the assigned vessel and which will not extend beyond the designated mooring length for the mooring row where the mooring is located, an application request to extend the mooring shall be submitted to the Harbormaster for consideration and at his or her discretion, may approve the request to extend the mooring, and if approved, the existing offshore mooring permit(s) shall be amended to reflect the extension Of the mooring length to accommodate a longer vessel up to a maximum of five additional feet in accordance with this subsection, and up to the maximum length of the new row with the approval of the Harbor Commission.
39 15-194
After review by the Harbormaster, applications for the relocation or extension of mooring length in excess of five feet shall be submitted to the Harbor Commission for consideration and rendering of a decision. For applications requiring the approval of the Harbor Commission, the Harbormaster shall present to the Harbor Commission all relevant facts to support the findings included in Section 17.05.140(D)(1).
Example: Permittee A wants to replace Atlantis (40' LOA), which is in a 40' row, with Atlantis 11(42' LOA). A larger mooring is required. Permittee B's Barnacle (41' LOA) is in a 45' row. Permittee C's Calypso (40' LOA) is in 45' row. All three moorings are in the same mooring field. A's mooring assignment can be switched with C, but not with B.
4. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written request for mooring relocation or extension 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. c. Application Requirements. An application for a mooring extension or relocation shall include the following information in addition to such other information as may be required by the Harbormaster:
The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which an amendment to the existing offshore mooring permit or the mooring relocation 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 the proposed longer vessel to be accommodated at the new or extended mooring; 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 or side -tie. .N
15-195
3. Action on Application. Upon receipt of a completed application , the Harbormaster or the Harbor Commission, as applicable, may approve or conditionally approve the relocation an amendment to the offshore mooring permit to allow the extension of the vessel occupancy length (in the event of an application for an unidentified vessel only a conditional approval may be obtained) 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 the assigned vessel occupancy length is filed; b. The proposed extension of the assigned vessel occupancy length Relocation 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) extending beyond the outer boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the designated maximum vessel LOA for the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored.; or
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; and
4. The applicant agrees to cover all costs associated with modifying the length or relocating to the longer mooring, including, but not limited to, any costs associated with relocating mooring anchors and tackle, and any costs associated with resizing mooring tackle to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size or anchor weights).
5. Conditions of Approval., Approval of a request for mooring extension or relocation shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
a. The costs of extension and/or relocation shall be borne by the permittees making the request.
b. The mooring permittee must occupy the new extended
mooring or new relocated mooring with the new vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval; and
41 15-196
3. For a mooring permit that is transferable, the mooring permittee may not transfer the permit or the mooring permittee's rights pursuant to a valid mooring permit, as amended, and such mooring permit and rights pursuant thereto shall not be sold or otherwise transferred until a period of twelve (12) months following the date of occupancy of the mooring with the new vessel. The sale or transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and (F) of this section.
5. Noncompliance with this section will constitute grounds for the Harbormaster to rescind the relocation approval and terminate the amendment to the mooring permit. In the event that the Harbormaster terminates the amendment to the mooring permit issued pursuant to this chapter, Within thirty (30) days of written notice of such recission and termination, if the permittee has moved the new vessel to a different mooring, the permittee shall at its sole expense return its vessel and the displaced vessel to their respective previously -assigned mooring locations, if and when available, if it will not become available, to such other mooring locations as become first available and as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster, and, the mooring permittee may thereafter continue to use the mooring in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of the original offshore mooring permit and subject to all of the terms and provisions of this title applicable to mooring permits. The Intentional Violation of subsection (M)(4)(a) of this section shall be 42 15-197
From: Sunjana Supekar
Sent: November 08, 2022 4:07 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback
Cc: Doug Carstens
Subject: November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Meeting; Comments re Agenda Item 3
Attachments: 2022-11-08 Letter to Harbor Commission fnl.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
Please see attached a comment letter from the office of Chatten-Brown, Carstens and Minteer on behalf of the Newport Mooring Association regarding Agenda Item 3 for the November 9, 2022 City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Sunjana Supekar
Sunjana Supekar (she/her)
CHATTEN-BROWN, CARSTENS & MINTEER
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Tel: 310-798-2400 Ext. 7
Fax: 310-798-2402
Email: ssskcbcearthlaw.com
Website: www.cbcearthlaw.com
15-198
Hermosa Beach Office Go, BC' y '
Phone: (310) 798-2400
San Diego Office Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP
Phone: (858) 999-0070 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
November 8, 2022
VIA E-MAIL([email protected],
[email protected])
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
c/o Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Douglas P. Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
Re: Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures Require Coastal Development Permit; November 9, 2022 Harbor
Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation, we are writing to inform the Harbor Commission that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") to proceed with its proposal to amend the City of Newport Beach Harbor Code (Municipal Code, Title 17, sections 17.25.020 and
17.60.040) in order to modify mooring procedures. The City's proposal to eliminate mooring extensions and conduct a pilot test constructing new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Further, the proposal would encourage unsafe navigation by large vessels in the mooring fields, and would impede coastal views. Thus, we urge the Harbor Commission to advise the City that it may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
I. The Coastal Commission Has Original Jurisdiction Over the Mooring Fields.
The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of protecting recreational and commercial boating and fishing activities. (See Pub. Resources Code §§30224, 30234, 30234.5.) The City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ("LUP") also emphasizes the importance of maintaining access to moorings, with Policy 3.3.2-3 which states "Continue to 15-199
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low- cost public access to the water and harbor."
Though the City has adopted a Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission retains original jurisdiction for developments in the tidelands, public trust, and submerged lands. (Pub. Resources Code §30519, subd. (b); see City of Newport Beach's Post LCP Certification and Appeal Jurisdiction Map, available at:
https://www.newportbeachca.aov/PLN/LCP/LCP Zoning/Maps/21 80 045 Pe rmit and Appeal Jurs Maps/Offcial CNB PostCert Map.pdf.) Thus, any development in the mooring fields at Newport Harbor, which are submerged lands, require review and approval by the Coastal Commission in the first instance.
II. The Proposed Revisions to the Harbor Code Eliminating Mooring Extensions Constitute Development and Require a Coastal Development Permit.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 17) constitute development under the Coastal Act. Under the Coastal Act, development includes, inter alia, "change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto." (Pub. Resources Code §30106; Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC(2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 250.) Under the existing Harbor Code, permittees may request mooring extensions for vessels longer than the assigned vessels, and extensions five feet or under may be granted by the Harbormaster without seeking approval from the Harbor Commission. (Newport Beach Municipal Code § 17.60.040, subd. (M).) The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code drastically change this process by eliminating mooring extensions. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 59-60; November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment C, pp. 8-9.) These revisions will alter and impede the access of permitholders to moorings, thereby constituting development under the Coastal Act.
The proposed revisions state:
Requests for mooring extensions shall no longer be considered.
Instead, requests for a longer or extended mooring will require relocating to a larger mooring. The mooring permittee making the request shall pay a fee for the relocation request and shall 15-200
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
bear all costs of relocating their vessel and the displaced vessel.
Relocations will require payment of a fee and be contingent upon availability of a vacant mooring or another permittee in the same mooring field (or also an adjacent field in the case of moorings in the H and J fields) having a vessel in a mooring row that is designated for a length of at least 5-feet greater. In no event will relocations be considered for mooring lengths in excess of 5' of the current mooring length for the permittee making such request.
Authority to approve relocation requests shall lie with the Harbormaster.
(November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment A.) These revisions alter access to water because they will result in requests even for small, de minimus extensions to be considered as a request for relocation of a permittee's mooring. The location of a permittee's mooring is an important access consideration, because if a mooring is relocated far away from a permittee's dinghy location, it will be difficult for the permittee to access their mooring. Additionally, flipping any moorings where boaters have to now access the mooring in a downwind fashion will change access to and from moorings and make accessing a mooring more difficult as the operator will have less control. Finally, these revisions impose the cost of unnecessary relocations onto permittees and requires them to pay a relocation fee, which further impedes access to moorings and is contrary to LUP Policy 3.3.2-3 which requires provision of moorings as a source of "low- cost" access. These modifications to the public's access to moorings require review and approval by the Coastal Commission.
III. The Proposed Phase I Pilot Test Constitutes Development and Requires a Coastal Development Permit.
As part of the City's plan to reconfigure the Harbor, the City plans to conduct an initial reconfiguration of C Field (Phase I), with a pilot test constructing 3 to 6 double mooring systems in one row to verify engineering and functionality. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p.
86.) Under the Coastal Act, development includes "in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; [or] construction ... of any structure ...." (Pub. Resources Code §30601.) The construction of new moorings thus falls squarely within the definition of development, for 15-201
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Construction of new moorings during the pilot test will require installation and placement of new shared anchors, shackles, chains, and buoys within the mooring fields. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 48, 78.) As described above, development within the mooring fields is subject to the Coastal Commission's original jurisdiction and thus requires a Coastal Development Permit. Accordingly, the City cannot proceed with the Phase I pilot test without a Coastal Development Permit.
IV. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Encourage Unsafe Navigation of Large Vessels in the Mooring Fields.
The mooring fields as currently configured provides protection from larger vessels. We are concerned that the proposed mooring reconfiguration, which provides for wide, up to 100-foot fairways, would encourage navigation of large vessels in the mooring fields. This would both obstruct coastal access and create a safety concern for permittees operating small vessels, as well as for paddleboarders, kayakers, and others operating small human -powered vessels in the safe haven of the mooring fields. This goes against the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, which protect such activities. (Pub. Resources Code §§30211, 30220, 30224.) Marine life that frequent the harbor, such as dolphins, may also be impacted by the introduction of larger vessels. (See Pub. Resources Code §30230.)
The mooring areas in Newport Harbor are designated "Special Anchorages" by the Coast Guard. (33 C.F.R. §110.95; see 77 Fed. Reg. 22489, available at: https://www.aovinfo.,-ov/content/pkg/FR-2012-04-16/pdf/2012- 9006.pdf.) Special anchorage areas "should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels." (33 C.F.R. §109.10.) Thus, fairways that accommodate large vessels should not be located within the mooring fields.
V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.
We are also concerned with City staff s questionable assertion that the mooring reconfigurations would greatly improve harbor views. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p. 82.) The proposal to push mooring rows together will alter view corridors from the public boardwalk around Balboa Island (and other boardwalks in Newport Harbor). (See Pub. 15-202
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
Resources Code § 30251 ["The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance."]) The plan will also alter homeowner views of the harbor. While under the proposed reconfiguration, views maybe improved for some —those whose properties are fronted by a fairway —views may also be greatly worsened for others, including those whose properties are fronted by the proposed double - wide tandem rows of boats.
VI. Conclusion.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code present significant changes that would alter access to water and construct new moorings in the submerged mooring fields. The proposed mooring reconfiguration would encourage unsafe navigation of large vessels that impede coastal access for small-scale recreational boaters and others, and would obstruct coastal views.
Accordingly, the proposed mooring plan constitutes development under the Coastal Act and appears to be in conflict with the Coastal Act. As such, it must be reviewed for approval by the Coastal Commission. We request that the Harbor Commission, in fulfilling its charge, advise the City of these issues prior to making any recommendation.
Sincerely,
-/47�` +A-'
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
15-203
From: Fred Fourcher
Sent: November 08, 2022 3:53 PM
To: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Document to be entered into the record for tomorrow's Harbor Commission Meeting
Attachments: Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners.docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Fred Fourcher, Chairman
Bitcentral, Inc.
[email protected]
Direct 949 417 41 1 1
Cell 714 914 1000
,-1. 1-1 ..di. —F. —.
15-204
Fred Fourcher
507 Larkspur
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners,
I have lived in Corona Del Mar since 1979 and have had my offshore and onshore moorings since 1976. My offshore mooring and onshore mooring are on Balboa Island and adjacent to each other.
It is stated that the intent is to improve the harbor to the benefit of mooring permittees.
What is being decided is if the City of Newport Beach can move our boat to a different mooring permanently without our permission and at our expense, is clearly not for the benefit of mooring permittees and has some other purpose. Mooring locations are picked for a reason, Permittees acquired permits in specific locations such as proximity to their house, yacht club or shore mooring. This major disruption will result in lawsuits and political fallout. The people who you are supposed to be serving will do whatever it takes to keep the current order in the harbor. This is simply a bad idea with massive un-intended consequences.
This proposal is deeply troubling because the Harbor Commission is usurping the decision - making responsibility from our Elected Officials. There is no reason to be revising the city harbor code for a pilot test of a questionable mooring system.
This proposal is not for the benefit of the Mooring Permittees. I along with others will mobilize to fight the Harbor Commission to keep this poorly conceived proposal from being implemented.
Fred Fourcher
15-205
From: Admin
Sent: November 08, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Blank, Paul; [email protected] Cc: NMA Email Board
Subject: Newport Mooring Association Comments and Concerns Attachments: Newport Mooring Association's comments regarding the 11-9-22 Harbor Commission Item 3 .pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Harbor Commission —
Please find attached the Newport Mooring Association's comments regarding the November 9th, 2022, Newport Beach Harbor Commission Item #3 -Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests.
Thank you,
The Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https://newportmooringassociation . org
15-206
Newport Mooring Association
November 8, 2022
NMA Comments regarding the November 9th 2022 Newport Beach Harbor Commission Item #3 - Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests Dear Honorable Members of the Harbor Commission,
Please find the following documents for your consideration. For your convenience we provide the following table of contents:
1. NMA concerns regarding the proposed Harbor Code revisions and plan Page 2
2. Summary list of recommendations regarding Agenda Item #3 Page 4
3. Correspondence from Attorney Doug Carstairs identifying legal concerns Page 5
4. Letter from Master Mariner Captain James L. Haley detailing concerns Page 10
5. Harbor Commission Tracking Sheet with harbor code revisions and complete mooring plan presented to NMA and public for the first time October 12th Page 12
6. Professional and timely email responses from the NMA to Harbor Commission Page 13
7. Follow-up email from L. Scott Karlin to Commissioner Beer 10-26-22 with attachments with specific recommendations to clarify language in Title 17 Page 18 15-207
Newport
November 81h, 2022
Dear Chair Scully and Harbor Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding November 9th Harbor Commission Agenda Item #6-3 (Objective 2.3) involving significant revisions to the harbor code and the initial stage (pilot test) of a plan to significantly change access to the mooring fields.
The NMA is extremely concerned that revisions to the harbor code are being considered in advance of an untested mooring plan concept. These specific proposed harbor code revisions were seen by the public, for the first time ever, on the October 12th, 2022, agenda. The proposed revisions to the harbor code (Title 17) were not developed in public and were not hashed out in any public stakeholder meetings. The revisions appear to have been developed in closed door subcommittee meetings with no public oversight or input.
The proposed harbor code revisions would allow the harbormaster or the Harbor Commission, to move large numbers of boats or moorings to new locations in the name of "realignment" without any constraints or conditions, and without City Council approval. We have also heard concerns from many homeowners.
We want to be good neighbors and are also concerned that this will have an impact not only on mooring holders, but also on residences and homeowners who may have their views altered now and, in the future, again without restrictions or City Council approval. Some homeowners may have a bit better view, some worse, but no one will know how this will play out now or in the future.
We are also concerned with the harbor code revision involving transferring certain mooring decision making authority from our elected City Council to the Harbor Commission. The City Charter appropriately differentiates the formal responsibility of the Harbor Commission as an advisory panel and the City Council as the formal decision -making body. Notably, the Council is comprised of individuals elected to serve their constituents and they are therefore responsible and accountable for their decisions.
The timing is also problematic. The granting of broader authority to the Harbor Commission and Harbormaster while they embark on a new mooring plan that has already been identified as problematic to the permittees will create another point of contention. Transparency, accountability, and collaboration should not be compromised during this phase.
As you may be aware, the complete mooring report, with the supporting engineering study on the holding power of the proposed anchor system was first presented for public review at the October 121h, 2022, Harbor Commission meeting. Numerous members of the public expressed concern regarding increased risk and the difficulty of use of the proposed "shared anchor" mooring plan that involves moving mooring rows closer together and the requirement for a mooring user to be forced to approach a mooring in a downwind manner given our prevailing westerly winds. Approaching a mooring in a downwind fashion is never recommended as it involves less control of a vessel, which in turn, increases risk. 2 15-208
Given we have not been presented with a revised plan since the October 12t" Harbor Commission meeting, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to comment on what may be presented on November 9t" as we have not seen any revisions to the mooring plan.
The NMA opposes a mooring plan that requires a mooring user to approach a mooring in a downwind manner (and depart a mooring in an upwind manner). The proposal presented on October 12th pushes the shared -anchor mooring rows close together which indicates there will only be "one way in" and "one way out"'. This is less safe compared to the current configuration that has sufficient spacing between rows which gives mooring users the option to approach and depart from either direction depending on wind and current.
We believe the shared -anchor mooring concept has not been adopted throughout Southern California because it is inherently risky. We are only aware of a shared anchor mooring system in use in SoCal location, America's Cup Harbor, which is a fully protected marina within in an already protected harbor that is protected by Point Loma adjacent to "Shelter" Island in San Diego. The conditions in America's Cup and Newport Harbor are not comparable.
The NMA respectfully requests the Harbor Commission put the Title 17 revisions and mooring plan revisions on hold and schedule public stakeholder meetings to allow for more robust community engagement and stakeholder input. We would like to point out that the Harbor Commission held numerous stakeholder meetings when revising the harbor code a few years ago. These informal public stakeholder meetings allowed for robust community engagement, thoughtful back -and -forth which resulted in stakeholder buy -in to harbor code revisions. In contrast, these revisions have been developed out of public view and without robust community and stakeholder engagement.
It is our understanding that the initial intent of Objective 2.3 was to straighten out a few mooring rows. We believe this can be accomplished through voluntary and incentivized relocations.
The NMA looks forward to collaborating with the Harbor Commission to improve Newport Harbor while preserving the established mooring access we enjoy today.
Sincerely,
The Board Of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https.Ilnewportmooringassociation. org
3 15-209
Newport
Summary List of Newport Mooring Association Recommendations:
1. Postpone this agenda item in favor of public stakeholder meetings
2. Collaborate with the NMA on a voluntary mooring relocation plan to straighten out mooring fields.
3. The City can adjust a few moorings by a few feet at minimal cost to straighten out some mooring rows.
4. The City can better utilize existing vacant moorings by setting establishing a longer term boat storage rate for subleasing moorings. The current sublease rate is set high for visiting short term boaters. Establishing a lower rate for longer term users will generate significant revenue and better utilize existing vacant moorings.
5. The City should encourage mooring contractors to use GPS technology to make sure moorings are replaced in exact locations when they are lifted for service.
6. The City and NMA can collaborate to have biannual service of mooring hardware accomplished during the same general time period for the various mooring fields (ex. J field in February, H field in March). This will allow the contractors to make sure everything is lined up nicely and may save contractor and permittees in mobilization costs because they will be working the same mooring field for several days in a row.
7. If one objective is to create more "Open Water" then do not add more moorings and boats. This will create less "Open Water".
0 15-210
Hermosa Beach Office Cj pc1 Y 1 Douglas P. Carstens
Phone: j310) 799-24W Email Address:
?
San Diego OFiiee
Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP [email protected] Phone: (858) 999-0070 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (619) 9404522 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcear(hiaw.com
November 8, 2022
VIA E-MAIL([email protected],
[email protected])
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
c/o Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Re_ Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures Require Coastal Development Permit; November 9, 2022 Harbor
Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation, we are writing to inform the Harbor Commission that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") to proceed with its proposal to amend the City of Newport Beach Harbor Code (Municipal Code, Title 17, sections 17.25.020 and
17.60.040) in order to modify mooring procedures. The City's proposal to eliminate mooring extensions and conduct a pilot test constructing new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Further, the proposal would encourage unsafe navigation by large vessels in the mooring fields, and would impede coastal views. Thus, we urge the Harbor Commission to advise the City that it may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
I. The Coastal Conunission Has Original Jurisdiction Over the Mooring Fields.
The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of protecting recreational and commercial boating and fishing activities. (See Pub. Resources Code §§30224, 30234, 30234.5.) The City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ("LUP") also emphasizes the importance of maintaining access to moorings, with Policy 3.3.2-3 which states "Continue to 5 15-211
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low- cost public access to the water and harbor."
Though the City has adopted a Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission retains original jurisdiction for developments in the tidelands, public trust, and submerged lands. (Pub. Resources Code §30519, subd. (b); see City of Newport Beach's Post LCP Certification and Appeal Jurisdiction Map, available at:
https://www.newportbeachea.gov/PLN/LCPILCP Zoning/Mapsl21 80 045 Pe rmit and Appeal Jurs MapslOffcial CNB PostCert Map.pdf.) Thus, any development in the mooring fields at Newport Harbor, which are submerged lands, require review and approval by the Coastal Commission in the first instance.
II. The Proposed Revisions to the Harbor Code Eliminating Mooring Extensions Constitute Development and Require a Coastal Development Permit.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code, Title 17) constitute development under the Coastal Act. Under the Coastal Act, development includes, inter alia, "change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto." (Pub. Resources Code §30106; Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 250.) Under the existing Harbor Code, permittees may request mooring extensions for vessels longer than the assigned vessels, and extensions five feet or under may be granted by the Harbormaster without seeking approval from the Harbor Commission. (Newport Beach Municipal Code §17.60.040, subd. (M).) The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code drastically change this process by eliminating mooring extensions. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 59-60; November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment C, pp. 8-9.) These revisions will alter and impede the access of permitholders to moorings, thereby constituting development under the Coastal Act.
The proposed revisions state:
Requests for mooring extensions shall no longer be considered.
Instead, requests for a longer or extended mooring will require relocating to a larger mooring. The mooring permittee making the request shall pay a fee for the relocation request and shall 0 15-212
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
bear all costs of relocating their vessel and the displaced vessel.
Relocations will require payment of a fee and be contingent upon availability of a vacant mooring or another permittee in the same mooring field (or also an adjacent field in the case of moorings in the H and J fields) having a vessel in a mooring row that is designated for a length of at least 5-feet greater. In no event will relocations be considered for mooring lengths in excess of 5' of the current mooring length for the permittee making such request.
Authority to approve relocation requests shall lie with the Harbormaster.
(November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Staff Report, Attachment A.) These revisions alter access to water because they will result in requests even for small, de minimus extensions to be considered as a request for relocation of a permittee's mooring. The location of a permittee's mooring is an important access consideration, because if a mooring is relocated far away from a permittee's dinghy location, it will be difficult for the permittee to access their mooring. Additionally, flipping any moorings where boaters have to now access the mooring in a downwind fashion will change access to and from moorings and make accessing a mooring more difficult as the operator will have less control. Finally, these revisions impose the cost of unnecessary relocations onto permittees and requires them to pay a relocation fee, which further impedes access to moorings and is contrary to LUP Policy 3.3.2-3 which requires provision of moorings as a source of "low- cost" access. These modifications to the public's access to moorings require review and approval by the Coastal Commission.
III. The Proposed Phase I Pilot Test Constitutes Development and Requires a Coastal Development Permit.
As part of the City's plan to reconfigure the Harbor, the City plans to conduct an initial reconfiguration of C Field (Phase I), with a pilot test constructing 3 to 6 double mooring systems in one row to verify engineering and functionality. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p.
86.) Under the Coastal Act, development includes "in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; [or] construction. . of any structure ...... (Pub. Resources Code §30601.) The construction of new moorings thus falls squarely within the definition of development, for 7 15-213
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022
which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Construction of new moorings during the pilot test will require installation and placement of new shared anchors, shackles, chains, and buoys within the mooring fields. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, pp. 48, 78.) As described above, development within the mooring fields is subject to the Coastal Commission's original jurisdiction and thus requires a Coastal Development Permit. Accordingly, the City cannot proceed with the Phase I pilot test without a Coastal Development Permit.
IV. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Encourage Unsafe Navigation of Large Vessels in the Mooring Fields.
The mooring fields as currently configured provides protection from larger vessels. We are concerned that the proposed mooring reconfiguration, which provides for wide, up to 100-foot fairways, would encourage navigation of large vessels in the mooring fields. This would both obstruct coastal access and create a safety concern for permittees operating small vessels, as well as for paddleboarders, kayakers, and others operating small human -powered vessels in the safe haven of the mooring fields. This goes against the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, which protect such activities. (Pub. Resources Code §§30211, 30220, 30224.) Marine life that frequent the harbor, such as dolphins, may also be impacted by the introduction of larger vessels. (See Pub. Resources Code §30230.)
The mooring areas in Newport Harbor are designated "Special Anchorages" by the Coast Guard. (33 C.F.R. § 110.95; see 77 Fed. Reg. 22489, available at: https-//www_goyinfo_gov/contentlpkglFR-2012-04-16lpdf/2012- 9006.pdf.} Special anchorage areas "should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels." (33 G.F.R. §109.10.) Thus, fairways that accommodate large vessels should not be located within the mooring fields.
V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.
We are also concerned with City staffs questionable assertion that the mooring reconfigurations would greatly improve harbor views. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p. 82_) The proposal to push mooring rows together will alter view corridors from the public boardwalk around Balboa Island (and other boardwalks in Newport Harbor). (See Pub. 0 15-214
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November S, 2022
Resources Code § 30251 ["The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance."]) The plan will also alter homeowner views of the harbor. While under the proposed reconfiguration, views maybe improved for same —those whose properties are fronted by a fairway --views may also be greatly worsened for others, including those whose properties are fronted by the proposed double - wide tandem rows of boats.
VI. Conclusion.
The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code present significant changes that would alter access to water and construct new moorings in the submerged mooring fields. The proposed mooring reconfiguration would encourage unsafe navigation of large vessels that impede coastal access for small-scale recreational boaters and others, and would obstruct coastal views.
Accordingly, the proposed mooring plan constitutes development under the Coastal Act and appears to be in conflict with the Coastal Act. As such, it must be reviewed for approval by the Coastal Commission. We request that the Harbor Commission, in fulfilling its charge, advise the City of these issues prior to making any recommendation.
Sincerely,
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
0 15-215
To. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
From. Capt. James L Haley
79 Dapplegray Lane
Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca. 90274
November 6, 2022
Dear Commissioners.
I have been asked by the Newport Mooring Association to give my expert opinion on the proposals contained in the published "Solution for Improved Safety and Utilization of Space and Adding New Moorings".
I have held a US Coast Guard License as Master Mariner since 1982, including First Class Pilotage, Unlimited Tonnage in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and employed as a pilot in the Port of Long Beach For the past 32 years. I have been admitted as an expert in numerous State and Federal courts as an expert in ship handling and navigation_ I have also been a recreational sail and power boat owner for over fifty years and a frequent user of moorings in Southern California. it is my opinion that any proposal that involves moving mooring rows closer together and forcing any vessels to approach or depart a savoring in a down wind fashion (relative to the prevailing winds) will create much greater risk of collision and injury and a less safe usage of the mooring arrangement.
It would be almost impossible to overstate the negative impacts of configuring moorings that are not approached as nearly bow into the prevailing winds as practical. The increased difficulty of approaching or departing any mooring or dock in a downwind direction would certainly increase risk of collision, ailision, damage to boats and injury to boaters. All authoritative books on seamanship or boat handling are in emphatic agreement on this simple point. The vast majority of sail vessels and many power boats are single engined, and have very limited steering or maneuverability when moving astern. Departing moorings downwind would be as nicely as approaches to result in boat collisions, allisions, damage and injuries.
The America's Cup harbor arrangement that has been offered as an example is not comparable to Newport for the simple reason that it is shielded from wind by the topography of Point Lorna and protected from tidal currents by virtue of being land locked on three sides. Newport, by contrast is surrounded by low land masses that do little to protect the mooring fields from prevailing winds, and tidal Currents flow unimpeded through the moorings as well.
The current proposal creates a less safe situation by moving alternate mooring rows within 20 feet of each other. Less space affords less reaction time and decreases space to maneuver to avoid collisions or allisions when boats inevitably experience a failed mooring attempt such as when the wind or current are greater than anticipated_ Page 84 of the October 12`' presentation indicates the distance between all mooring rows range from 41 to 65 feet with an average of 53ft in the "C' mooring f'se;d. In the new mooring plan, on page 85, it indicates alternate mooring rows will be moved closer and within 20 feet of each other. In my opinion, moving the mooring rows within 20 feet decreases the ability to safety maneuver, especially in the event of strong winds, a failed mooring attempt or mechanical failure. 10 15-216
Any changes to the existing mooring arrangement that has served the boating community quite well for decades should give the most 5eriOUS consideration to the input of the current permittees. Their experience is the best source of knoMedge about what works and what will create problems for then and their fellow boaters.
Please feel free to call me with any questions at (928) 713-6277 Sincerely,
Capt. James Maley
11 15-217
HARBOR COMMISSION OBJECTIVES TRACKING SHEET —Excerpted for Objective #2.3
2. Harbor Viability (Beer) - Matters pertaining to Assets, Amenities, and Access.
January 12, 2022
March 9, 2022
Apr# 13, =
Miry 12, 2022
Z.3 Evaluate the current mooring fields and
provide a recommendation for new guideline
that better define rows and fairways to improve
navigation, safety, and optimization of space I
within the mooring fields. (Beer] I
Nothing to teport-
to report.
to report_
NMA NOTES REGARDING TIMELINE
Chair Beer discussed this objml rye rn detail
ar in the meeting. He noted he rs warring for the Presented no substantive details of mooring plan audit to come in and will bring it back to the No harbor code revisions presented niic�inn i
13fird and t has been received. Further feedback
be requested of the Commission at next month's
Vice Chair Beer discussed this objecave In detail
June 8,2022 earlkr In the meeting. He brought before the Commission his draft plan for feedback.
Vlae Clair Bow has teowvwi rnrtormstion k— [ir
July 13, 2022 a " firm ano we provWe a mbra �+
updses at next 1. Wcnth'10 nmw"-
Vrce Chair Beer noted that he is waiting on the final
report from the City's contract engineer. Once he
August 10, 2022 receives that he can venfty the information and provide a report to the Commission -
September 14, 1022 Vice Chair Beer will provide a complete report of this objective at the next meeting_
Vice Chair Beer provided a complete report on
t3dober 12, 2022 Objective goal 2.3 for consideration by the Harbor November 9, 2022
December 14, 2022
12 I
Presented no substantive details of mooring ptan
No harbor code revisions presented
i
Presented slideshow of mooring field redesign
No harbor code revisions presented
[40 No updates, engineering report "com+ng"
i
Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
No harbor code revisions presented
Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
No harbor code revisions presented
FIRST PRESENTATION OF COMPLETE REPORT
FIRST SUBMISSION OF HARBOR CODE REVISIONS
15-218
From; "me andefane ,'Admin'
Cc: Dept - City Council [Cit Council newportbeachca,gov>, 'NMA Email Board' , "Miller, Chris" , "Jung,
Jeremy"
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Admin amail new ortmoorin association.or >
Cc: Dept - City Council ,'NMA Email Board'
tnmaboard indi oharbor.com>; Miller, Chris ¢CMiller@r�ewiportbeachca.�ov>; Jung, Jeremy [1Jun new ortbeachca. av>
Subject: Re: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hello Megan,
Attached herewith please find a copy of the initiai engineering study for the mooring field reconfiguration. Should you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please do not hesitate to respond back to me. Should you wish to discuss any of the information provided, or any other aspects of the project, please do not hesitate to let me know as I am happy to meet with you and/or the NMA board prior to the next scheduled Harbor Commission meeting where this item will likely be agendized for public comment.
As you know, this project is a part of the Harbor Commission's Open Water initiative intended to improve safety, navigation, create more moorings for public use and increase the usable space for mariners in Newport Harbor. I look forward for the opportunity to share any of the details with you, your board, and its members.
Best regards,
Harbor Commissioner
T� sheer�newQortbo�chta.onv
(949) 702-69M
From: "Beer, Ira" ¢1Beer new ortbeachca. ov>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:06 AM
To: Admin
Cc: Dept - City Council , 'NMA Email Board'
13 15-219
rnmaboard indi oharbor.com>, Harbor Commission
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:42 PM
To: "Beer, Ira" [email protected]}
Cc: Dept - City Council , 'NMA Email Board'
Subject: RE: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hi Ira,
First, congratulations on your reappointment to the Harbor Commission. It's quite a responsibility, and we are glad and thankful when volunteers step up to shoulder this level of work.
I appreciate your response to my question. lust so I understand exactly, your proposal for the mooring field reconfiguration is oniy a concept at this time — that the engineering, financial and feasibility analysis have not been started at this time? We had assumed that much of those analyses had been completed. I think that assumption has caused some confusion among the membership. 14 15-220
As it relates to the mooring fee increase, yes, that is a separate topic and a question for the Harbor Commission. I apologize that you interpreted it as being connected with the mooring reconfiguration Proposal. Can you or another Commissioner address that question? According to the Harbor Commission goals and other documents, we have assumed that the offshore mooring appraisal has been completed. And, as you know, this is a very explosive issue with all mooring permitees. Do you have any information on timing that you can share with us? Thanks again for all your time and effort!
Megan
From: Beer, Ira dBeer new ortbeachca. ova
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Meg andelane 'Admin` ; Harbor Commission
Subject: Re: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees Hello Medan,
Thank you for your email. This project is still in a review stage. The assumptions in the draft proposal, while based on prior discovery, are subject to engineering review not yet completed. 1 appreciate the questions from your board set forth in the email received on June 14, 2022. I am however struggling to see how they relate directly to what was presented at the June 8, 2022, Harbor Commission meeting. The purpose of the mooring initiative discussed and defined in item 2.3 of the Harbor Commission Objectives is to evaluate the current mooring fields and provide a recommendation for new guidelines that better define rows and fairways to improve navigation, safety, and optimization of space within the mooring fields. Economics of the proposal and mooring rate increases were not a part of the discussion or the primary subject matter of the Objective.
I would be happy to meet with you and the NIVA board in person or via Zoom to discuss what was presented and the items related thereto. Please let me know. Otherwise, i hope you will watch for when this topic is agendized at future Harbor Commission meetings as I and the Harbor Commission value your comments and any inp�jt you feel compelled to share. Fhank you.
Best regards,
Harbor Commissioner
z
..+,' (944) 702-6900
From: Wegandelaney@ ¢hr_legartdelaneyC
Date: Monday, June 27, 2022 at 4:17 PM
To.-'Admin' ¢mail new Portmoor! n associatiori.or >, Harbor Commission 15 15-221
Cc: Dept - City Council
Subject: RE: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees To Commissioner Beer and the Harbor Commissioners —
We haven't heard nay response to our email of June 14t" . Can you give us any update you have on the harbor reconfiguration? What are your next steps?
Thank you,
The NMA Board of Directors
Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners
Newport Mooring Association
P.D. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mail QNew ortM oo ringiAssociation.or
From; Admin email@nQwportm4orinaassociat[on or
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3.30 PM
To: —Ha r>SorCommission Pnewportheachca aov
Cc: Dept - City Council ECitycouncil�}A newDortbeachca.Rav>; NMA Email Board cnmaboard_@ind igoharbor,com>
Subject: Mooring Reconfiguration Proposal and Mooring Fees To Commissioner Beer and the Harbor Commissioners.
At the June 811 Harbor Commission meeting, Commissioner Beer presented his new mooring system proposal. The proposal involves realigning the mooring fields, instalfing a new anchoring system, and having a shared mooring on one end of the two -point mooring systems. To better understand the proposed changes to the mooring system, we would like to review any supporting documents for the presentation, and we have the following questions:
1. Has this mooring reconfiguration been approved by City Management? Or is this stiff in a conceptual phase?
2. What financial analysis has been performed - revenues and expenditures, investment and payback - for the extensive capital and services outlay to implement this revised system? We have noted that this new project doesn't seem to appear in the proposed FY2022-23 budget document.
3_ if the City pays for the new hardware, we believe the City will assume the liability when a boat breaks loose from any new system or when the new system causes damage to a vessel, if the City installs and owns the new system, what is the City's exposure for accidents caused by the new system? How will the City manage the assumption of liability?
16 15-222
4. We would like to review the engineering analysis on the specific hardware being proposed for the shared mooring system. The proposed solution is far more rigid with greatly reduced catenary (thus reduced shock absorbing potential) between a vessel and the mooring anchor to limit movement of the boats, and we are very concerned about the potential stresses on boat cleats and other attachments. We are also concerned with how the system will perform under the heavy Santa Ana winds we have in Newport Beach.
5. Does this project require any approvals from the Coastal Commission? Does it require an Environmental Impact Report? Does it require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to move forward? Have any of these documents been completed at this time?
6. What type of "proof of concept" or trial moorings for implementation is being considered? Has Commissioner Beer identified areas that will be implemented first? What is the proposed Vmeframe for the implementation?
7. Was there an incident or a series of accidents that prompted the safety concerns that drove this proposal? We are concerned that the shared moorings make it more difficult to get a vessel on and off the mooring, and as previously discussed, may cause other issues and potential damage to vessels.
8. It should be noted that Commissioner Beer's earlier study from 2020 had identified a plan for a mooring realignment for safer fairways that now appears to have been abandoned for this far more complex reconfiguration.
Mooring Rate Increases - In addition to our questions on this new mooring configuration proposal, when we will next hear about the onshore/offshore mooring rates and appraisal? We assume that the offshore mooring appraisal has been completed Our members are very concerned and want to be prepared to discuss the new proposed rates.
We would like to reiterate the NMA's willingness to work collaboratively on policy and procedures that affect our harbor.
Thank you,
The NMA Board of Directors
Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mai[ New ortMoorio Association_ar
17 15-223
Wednesday October 26, 2022
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Paul Blank, Harbormaster
Dear Commissioner Beer:
I would like to thank you and Harbormaster Blank for meeting with Jerry LaPointe and me on October 20, for an initial preliminary meeting to answer some questions about the proposal to move almost all the offshore moorings and/or boats on the moorings. As mentioned at the meeting, this was intended to be an initial meeting to answer some questions to be followed by a second meeting with you, other commissioners, and the NMA.
At this initial meeting we asked for your personal assurance that any proposal to change Title 17 not be voted on at the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting, but instead postponed to allow the NMA and stakeholders to study the new proposal, and allow time for the City to send notice to all the stakeholders, including permit holders, followed by one or more stakeholder meetings. As stated previously, the NMA does not think it is appropriate to make any changes to Title 17 at this time. Certainly, a six boat trial test of a new concept in mooring layout and design does not require a Title 17 rewrite. Let's ask for volunteers instead of mandating that permittees cooperate. However, since Title 17 changes may need to happen eventually, we are hereby giving you our initial modifications to your earlier proposed language changes.
While the NMA does have a list of permittees, it is not as up to date or complete as the City's list, and it is our personal view that a mailing should not be placed on the shoulders of the NMA. We also requested that you ask other Commissioners if the matter could be placed on the agenda as a discussion item only, and not as an item to be voted on. We asked that you let us know as soon as possible to avoid our having to notify as many people as possible that the proposals in current form would be voted on at the November 9 meeting.
At the meeting you indicated the proposed changes to Title 17 were being made and that there was a deadline for us to comment on the changes. You indicated that you would try to provide us with these changes on Friday October 21, although you were not sure if that could be done and you might only be able to provide your work notes outlining the changes. You requested that we provide our comments on the Title 17 proposed and revised changes by the end of the day, Wednesday October 26. At approximately noon on Monday Oct 24 (two days ago), you sent the Title 17 revised changes in a pdf file. Yesterday I attempted to "convert" that file and gather comments from a few people on the NMA Board in order to meet the deadline of today. We understand that it was difficult to provide us with the new proposed changes before they were sent, and we ask you to appreciate the fact that putting together our views in a day and a half on the proposed revised Title 17 changes sent in a pdf file format, with the need to consult with numerous people, most of whom are working full time, is a difficult task.
At this preliminary meeting, in addition to discussing the timing and need for stakeholder meetings after notice is mailed, we expressed concerns and asked questions about placing the bow of boats within 20 feet from the bow or stern of another boat. We discussed in general concerns over safety, the difficulty in securing a boat to a mooring with another boat so close even when using a spreader line to help. We asked questions about where each mooring would be relocated and the need for each permit holder to know where their mooring would be relocated. We asked about the best way m
15-224
to keep multiple buoys attached to the same anchor or weight system as far apart as possible, and we asked about how to best study a theoretical reconfiguration in real life conditions. This is not intended to cover all the questions and matters discussed, but just a few that come to mind.
Again, with just a day and a half to provide some comments on the Title 17 changes, attached are some concepts. I have tried to put this in a format that is "readable" but it was difficult to work with the color coded pdf files that were sent to us.
I attempted to show our changes and modifications of your proposal by placing them in bold 14 point font with yellow highlight. Some of the words embedded in the highlight might have been in the original or in the proposed revisions.
To make it somewhat easier to follow the highlighted modifications, here is some background and additional comments. The letters refer to the corresponding Title 17 document letters.
Note: The version originally sent on Oct 26 to meet the deadline contained formatting errors, including some items that appear to be "strikeout" but are either embedded line of boxes that should have been removed and also at least one date error. Most of these embedded lines and boxes have been removed in the items noted as attachments.
17.25.020
F. Safety, safety and safety. The highlighted modifications attempt to make clear what should be otherwise obvious, that any new system or reconfiguration would first require proof of being safe without materially increasing the difficulty in getting on and off a mooring, particularly for elderly and disabled boaters and sailors under all wind, tide, and current conditions (over and above the existing level of difficulty in the same conditions). We do not think any responsible person would have difficulty with that concept, but without it being expressly stated in the code changes, when we are on the verge of a massive change in all parts of the harbor affected by winds and currents in a different way, this needs to be expressly stated and not just "implied".
Much of the discussion that follows, but not all, concerns what we generally call the two -buoy type of mooring.
F. 2. Spreader lines. Spreader lines are a good idea, but Harbormaster should be able to determine the different types of lines used. Spreader lines serve a number of functions in addition to warning other boaters of a mooring with a spreader line. They are often used to temporarily tie onto a cleat on a boat, and would need to be of the appropriate size for the cleat. There are much stronger lines of smaller diameter that float and last longer when exposed to the sun. The Harbormaster should be able to handle this.
G. Sand Lines. If the use of sand lines (aka mud lines) is being considered in some situations, the Harbormaster should determine if the mud on which the line will sit for days is contaminated. If contaminated, when picking up the line, the contaminated mud will get on skin and clothes, and may cause heath concerns. We do not know if the City has tested the mud under all the mooring fields.
17.60.040
19 15-225
B. Issuance of Permit. There is a lot of concerns about confusion in the documents between "existing moorings" and "newly created moorings". This is both a technical drafting issue, but is also a public relations and stakeholder issue. Some of the changes are just to clarify what appears to be the intent, in particular that transferability is not changing for existing permits, and a transferee after transfer will have the same right. To help make this clear, we have included definitions of New Moorings and Existing Moorings, among other ways to make it clearer.
B. 2. Permit Requirements
J. Authorization to Move.
Currently, Title 17 allows when "necessary" to move boats (not moorings). Historically, that has been interpreted to mean moving boats on a temporary basis to accommodate maintenance, dredging, etc. The proposed new language still refers to moving boats (vessels) but adds that this can be done when not necessary, and includes the reconfiguration of the entire mooring fields when there have been zero instances of any reported accidents or other issues with the existing configuration over 100 years of mooring use. We understand that some members of the Harbor Commission have a vision of a tidier Harbor and may have an aesthetic vision that boats in perfect rows make a nicer water view. However others may differ on this and find the more natural view of boats swaying naturally in the harbor is the more pleasing view. No painter has ever painted boats lined up like in a parking lot, yet there are tens of thousands of paintings of boats sitting naturally in a harbor. The NMA does not think the current system needs to be radically changed. At the very least, there needs to be stakeholder meetings after a mailing describing proposed changes. There needs to be opportunities to be heard by all those impacted, and also extensive study of real world usage of the suggested new configuration before any changes are made to Title 17. If changes are ultimately made to Title 17 allowing for the future moving of boats or moorings, under some different plan of reconfiguration, then the same type of stakeholder meetings, safety, and accessibility studies should be a prerequisite of such major changes.
In the event that any Title 17 changes are made to allow for reconfigurations, despite the fact that it is not needed, we would address some of the conditions on what should be imposed to address safety, potential difficulty of use, accessibility for the old and disabled, and fairness of location. We have also tried to address what appears to be major confusion in the proposed language as it relates to moving boats vs moving moorings.
Moving Boats vs Moving Moorings.
Much of the proposed language changes refers to moving boats or moving vessels. We believe this does not fit with any proposal that in effect is an attempt to move moorings into certain rows. Here are a few examples of the havoc that would result in referring to moving boats vs moving moorings. Permit holder Joe, who has a 50 foot mooring Z-12 (there is no Z field it is used as an example only), and Joe at one time had his 46 foot boat called Joes Dream on the mooring. Joe sold his boat and acquired a 34 foot sailboat, Joes Folly, to use to race in the Thursday afternoon races. Joes Folly is now on Z-12, but in three or four years, Joes knows he may give up sailboat racing given his age and he plans to put another 46 foot powerboat back on Z-12. Under the proposed authorization, the Harbormaster can move Joes Folly to some other, smaller mooring, and 20 15-226
move someone else's 50 foot boat onto Z-12. Under the proposed plan, as I understand it and which refers to moving boats, we could have the following scenario: Joe will pay for the 50 foot mooring (that he is not using), Joe will pay to maintain the 50 foot mooring (that he is not using), and Joe will have no say in how his new mooring is being maintained, as some other mooring permittee will be on his 50 foot mooring. However in a few years when he sell's Joes Folly, and buys a 46 foot trawler Joe's Last Boat, he will have not a place to put the retirement boat of his dreams.
Here's another example: Joe's uncle, Sam, owns the mooring next to Joe and he follows the harbor scuttlebutt closely. Right now his 40-foot mooring Z-11 is usually vacant, although he occasionally puts an old 16 foot skiff on it for occasional use. Hearing what is going on and planning to buy another boat a few years from now, he goes out and buys the cheapest 40 foot boat he can, just to have a "place holder" so he will have a place to put his new boat in three or four years, and no one will be moved in the meantime to his underutilized 40 foot mooring.
These are only two of a thousand different situations that could come up over time in the lifetime of a boater. People do change boats.
To avoid all of this confusion, the language addresses the issue directly and speaks directly about moving moorings and under what situations and conditions that would be appropriate. While the NMA believes there is clearly no need and no necessity to do that on a wholesale basis, there may be some areas in the harbor where it makes sense. With this in mind we have offered language that would address this and have added safeguards that would discourage potential abuse, while at the same time increasing safety, and avoiding creating difficulties of use and accessibility. The language allows for transparency and mandates the use of appropriate stakeholder meetings, and some checks and balances, including ultimate approval by the City Council.
B.2.1 Transfer of Permit / Permit Requirements
These are mostly technical clarifications, to make clear the status of a transferee of an "Existing Permit" and the status of a second name on the mooring permit as having a different status that does not create a "transfer" and provides a method to remove the second named person.
M. Request to Extend Mooring Length or Relocate to Larger Mooring.
Extensive changes were needed here, which are too many to summarize. These changes are made in an attempt to avoid some of the issues discussed above regarding moving boats vs moving moorings. For example, if a 50 foot boat on a 50 foot mooring is moved to a 60 foot row (by for example a private sale), or for realignment purposes a 50 foot mooring is placed in a 60 foot row, perhaps because it was on the end of a row and the only end of row mooring available is in a 60 foot row, the person with the 50 foot boat should not lose his or her mooring and be subject to relocation of boat or mooring. Moreover, if after a few years, the person with the 50 foot boat, sells the boat and asks to allow his new 52 foot boat to be on his mooring and asks for his 50 foot mooring, which is in the 60 foot row to be extended to a 55 foot mooring, he or she should at least be allowed to make the request, and the Harbormaster and/or the Harbor Commission should be allowed to address the request on a case by case basis so long as the boat will be well within the length limits of the row. The proposed changes take into account the different type of situations, and avoids the "move the boat only" without moving the mooring issues, discussed in detail above. 21 15-227
As a final note, because of the edits, re-edits, and conversions from pdf files to Word files, some of the internal numbers and cross references may need to be adjusted.
We of course would have preferred more than one and a half days to address the major proposed changes, as revised, to Title 17, and we are hopeful that we will have the time and opportunity to work with the Harbor Commission to come up with reasonable and appropriate changes through transparency and with safety, usability, and accessibility in mind.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Z scoff /ieK
and the
Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https://newportmooringassociation . org
Attachments:
First Attachment:
17.25.020 Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations.
A. Location. No person having charge of any vessel shall berth or anchor the same in Newport Harbor except within designated areas. Any vessel which is berthed, moored or anchored at a place not designated for such vessel shall be moved as directed by the Harbormaster. In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas, consideration shall be given to the needs of commerce, the utilization of turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space. No vessels shall be moored or anchored in any part of any turning basin or channel unless secured both fore and aft except as provided in subsection (H) of this section. Every vessel moored or anchored in any part of the harbor outside of any turning basin or channel shall be so moored or anchored as to prevent such vessel from swinging or drifting into any turning basin or channel.
1. No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any vessel shall:
a. Berth or anchor the same in Newport Harbor except within the designated areas; or b. Anchor a vessel in any of Newport Harbor's designated public anchorage areas or at any location on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean within five hundred (500) yards of a designated protected swimming area for a cumulative period of time that exceeds seventy-two (72) hours within any thirty (30) calendar day period. The Harbormaster may authorize, in writing, an extension to the seventy-two (72) hour time limit if the Harbormaster determines that given the particular circumstances an extension of time is reasonable and warranted.
2. Any vessel which is berthed, moored or anchored at a place in Newport Harbor not designated for such vessel shall be moved as directed by the Harbormaster. In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas in Newport Harbor, consideration shall be given to the needs of 22 15-228
commerce, the utilization of turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space.
B. Application of Chapter. The terms of this chapter, as they relate to moorings and buoys, shall apply to "on -shore moorings" which are moorings located landward of the pierhead line and to "offshore moorings" which are located bayward of the pierhead line, with equal force and effect.
C. Berthing.
1. Boats berthed at private or public piers shall not extend beyond the prolongation of the side property lines of the property or properties to which the pier is connected in accordance with Section 17.35.020.
2. Any boat berthed at a pier or slip shall not extend bayward beyond the end of the pier or slip by a distance of more than the maximum width of its beam. Between Bulkhead Station 256, beginning at Collins Avenue to Bulkhead Station 255, boats moored at a pier or slip shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet bayward beyond the end of the pier or slip or more than the width of the beam of the boat, whichever is less.
D. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct or maintain a pier mooring or buoy in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled tidelands without first having obtained a permit pursuant to this title.
E. Unauthorized Use of Mooring. No person shall use a mooring unless he or she holds a current and valid permit except with the permission of the Harbormaster for temporary use, as herein provided.
F. Chains and Fastenings of.#el+x Anchor Mooring System. Offshore moorings in the City's mooring _ fields which are designed to secure a boat with two anchors, one secured to the bow and one to the stern, may, at the direction of the City, consist of:
Aneherweight��zVeaYs ..•veSS919sfii"Ti0,-e Znfin Tir IJL`he mooring in all wind, tide, and current conditions in the particular field and area where the boat will be moored, including the vessel safely being secured to the mooring without undue difficulty when approaching and leaving the mooring by persons of all ages and persons with disabilities consistent with the Americans with Disability Act and the California State Unruh and Disabled Person's Act ); ortwo separate anchor weights for each vessel, If moorings in a field are reconfigured to be closer to other moorings in a field either side to side or fore or aft, such reconfiguration shall first proven to be safe for the use of the moorings in all wind, tide, and current conditions in the particular field and area where the boat will be moored, including the vessel safely being secured to the mooring without undue difficulty when approaching and leaving the mooring by persons of all ages and persons with disabilities consistent 23 15-229
with the Americans with Disability Act and the California State Unruh and Disabled Persons Act.
Mooring permittees shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing, and replacing all anchor system components, including but not limited to, allchains, shackles, weights, lines, buoys and all other gear and equipment used in securing their vessels to the mooring.
If the City has installed a helical anchor system for use as the shared anchor mooring system. the City shall maintain, repair, and replace only the shared helical anchor at its cost.
1. No person shall erect, construct or maintain any mooring in Newport Harbor unless all chains and fastenings are of sufficient size to stand a breaking strain of at least six times the weight of the mooring.
2. All mooring lines on buoys (excluding a Spreader Line as described below) shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately sink.
All double or two -point moorings that are equipped with two mooring buoys for mooring to both bow and stern, are at all times required to have (i) a vessel properly tied to both mooring buoys, or (ii) a single" polypropylene line of a diameter approved by the Harbor Master for that sized boat and mooring, secured and connected to both the bow and stern buoys, or other floating line, or of another size or type approved by the Harbor Master. The line shall be no longer than five feet plus the length of the mooring and equipped with 9" long two-color buoys affixed in -place to the line that are no less than ten feet apart from each other, (the "Spreader Line"), and (iii) two lines that are appropriately sized and specified for attachment to each mooring buoy that will be secured one each to the port and starboard cleats at each the bow and stern at all times the vessel is occupying the mooring space, and (iv) maintained the Spreader Line keeping it clean from algae and other marine growth to prevent the line from submerging below the surface and not remaining easily visible to other approaching mariners.
G. Sand Line Moorings. With the approval of the Harbormaster, mMooring permittees may use a single to the nnnncing anrhnr lino Tha Sanri I inP shall hp prripPrly waightPri to immariiataly cink whan dr-PP-d The permittee must wbmit a Mooring Mndifirat*nn Rea., lest to the Harbormastiar and shall include details of the modification (including diagrams, if requested)., The Harbormaster may approve the request based upon his or her determination that the modification will result in any safety or navigational concerns, and prior to approving said use of any sand line, the Harbormaster shall consider if the upper 12 inches of the bottom soil that the sand line will contact is contaminated which may make contact with the sand line in any place that which may come into contact with a person handling the sand line through the skin or by inhalation. If the Harbormaster becomes aware of such contamination, the
24 15-230
Harbormaster shall report the information to both the Harbor Commission, the City Council and the City Manager.
G. Buoy Markings. Mooring buoys shall be painted with the number allocated thereto by the Harbormaster to the mooring, the numeral(s) of which shall be at least three inches in height.
H. Mooring, Anchoring and Vessel Condition Requirements.
1. Mooring ""Anchoring and Mooring. All vessels anchored on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure. All vessels anchored in Newport Harbor in the designated anchorage area shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure and does not extend beyond the demarcation line of the designated anchorage area. All vessels using moorings in Newport Harbor shall be firmly anchored to a mooring from bow and stern in such a manner as to prevent the vessel from swinging, turning or excessive drifting, except in areas designated by the Harbormaster as single mooring areas. Vessels in single mooring areas shall be tied from the bow. A vessel's Adjusted LOA shall not exceed the designated length of its mooring row. At no time may any portion of the vessel or object attached to the vessel extend into the fairway. All vessels anchored in Newport Harbor in the designated anchorage area shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure and does not extend beyond the demarcation line of the designated anchorage area.
h. Violation of the terms and conditions of other use or rental permits as granted by the 2.
Vessel Condition. Safety, Seaworthiness and Operability. Vessels assigned to a mooring by permit must be maintained in a safe, seaworthy and operable condition. If, based upon the appearance of the vessel, inspection by the City or other facts, the Harbormaster has cause to believe a vessel is not safe, seaworthy and operable, the Harbormaster shall give written notice to the permittee, in accordance with the service requirements of Section
1.05.030, requesting a demonstration that the vessel is safe, seaworthy and operable. The permittee shall, upon written notice specifying the date and time, demonstrate to the Harbormaster that the vessel assigned to the mooring is safe, seaworthy or operable. In the event that the Harbormaster determines that vessel is not safe, seaworthy or operable, the permittee shall:
a. Commence repairs within thirty (30) calendar days upon service of the written notice of such determination and complete repairs within ninety (90) calendar days of the commencement unless the Harbormaster, upon written request from the permittee specifying the reasons therefor, approves an extension of time to complete the repairs; or b. Remove the vessel within thirty (30) calendar days of service of the written notice of such determination and request assignment of a different vessel that is safe, seaworthy and operable to the mooring within sixty (60) calendar days after the removal of the vessel. This section is not intended to apply to any brief period of repair common to most vessels. The Harbormaster may repeat his or her request to test operability and seaworthiness as needed.
3. Vessel Condition —Public Nuisance. No person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any vessel shall maintain, permit, cause or allow to exist on such vessel any of the 25 15-231
following conditions:
a. Promotion of fire hazard, including, but not limited to, improperopen fuel storage, deficiencies in the vessel's fuel storage tanks, inoperable electrical systems, storage of combustible or other flammable material that constitutes a fire hazard to any vessel;
b. Retention of water that becomes stagnant, unsanitary, or polluted; C. Accumulation or storage of rubbish, trash, debris, rubble, containers, or boxes that are visible aboard the vessel or stored inside the vessel in such a way as to make the vessel inoperable for its intended use;
d. Storage or securing a vessel in such away that it impedes pedestrian travel on City beaches and tidelands;
e. Contribution to hazards to public safety or health, such as, but not limited to: propagation of vermin, rats, insects, or unsanitary conditions from the accumulation of fecal materials; f. Maintenance in such nonseaworthy condition that the vessel is unsafe, unsightly or poorly maintained, including, but not limited to: broken windows, unsecured doors or hatches, excessive marine growth attached to the vessel, being inoperable for the vessel's intended use, partially destroyed or partially repaired for more than three continuous months, providing access to marine mammals, actively seeping hazardous or toxic material into the surrounding waters, or would present a physical danger to public safety personnel during emergency access;
g. Operation of its mechanical or electrical systems creates excessive noise, odors, vibrations, fumes, discharges or emissions that constitute an impact on public health or safety; i. Allowance of repetitive, boisterous or unruly conduct by the vessel operator or occupants when that conduct:
i. Is offensive to a person of ordinary sensibility, and ii. Continues after a written or oral request to terminate the conduct, or iii. Is offensive to a considerable number of people;
j. Anchorage in an area controlled by the City without adequate anchor(s) rope or chain appropriate for the wind and sea conditions encountered in Newport Bay; k. Inability of a vessel on a shore mooring to be self-righting on an incoming tide without flooding the vessel;
I. Attachment to a mooring in such a way that the vessel regularly drifts or impedes safe navigation in Newport Bay; or
m. Installation of a marine sanitation device that is not connected directly to an internal holding tank at all times while in Newport Bay.
Violation of this subsection (H) is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. In the event that the City determines that a vessel is a public nuisance, the City may commence public 26 15-232
nuisance abatement as provided in this title.
4. If, based upon the appearance of the vessel, inspection by the City or Harbormaster or other facts, the Harbormaster determines that a sea lion has boarded a moored vessel, the Harbormaster shall issue and serve a notice of violation in accordance with Section 1.05.030 and the permittee shall take any and all necessary action to employ and maintain appropriate measures to deter sea lions from boarding the vessel within seven calendar days of the notice of violation. If the Harbormaster determines that appropriate deterrent measures have not been taken within seven calendar days of the notice of violation, the Harbormaster may issue an administrative citation or take any other enforcement action authorized by this Code. In the event the Harbormaster issues an administrative citation, the permittee shall:
a. Take any and all necessary action to employ and maintain appropriate sea lion deterrent measures; or
b. Remove the vessel from Newport Harbor.
"Appropriate deterrent measures" shall be defined as the latest methodology permitted by National Marine Fisheries Service to minimize sea lion boarding of vessels assigned to a mooring. If the City is unable to reach the permittee within the seven calendar days, the Harbormaster may install temporary deterrent measures as needed and recover the City's cost of compliance.
I. Maintenance. All moorings shall be kept in good and serviceable condition in the location assigned by the Harbormaster.
J. Specifications. Specifications for the size of chains required on moorings, and weights of moorings, and all other mooring equipment shall be as adopted by resolution of the Fib;! Harbor Commission. No person shall erect, construct or maintain any mooring in Newport Harbor unless all chains and fastenings are of sufficient size to stand a breaking strain of at least six times the weight of the mooring. All mooring lines on buoys shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately
sink. With a double mooring, however, it shall be permissible to connect two mooring lines with a spreader line having floats attached thereto to keep such line afloat when the mooring is unoccupied.
K. Inspection of Moorings. Each mooring shall be lifted by the owner for inspection by the Harbormaster at least once every two years and shall be repaired, as necessary, so as to be in good condition before being replaced; provided, that the Harbormaster may require any mooring to be lifted at any time when deemed necessary to assure it is in good condition. If the permittee has such lifting performed by a marine contractor, then the Harbormaster may authorize such contractor to inspect the mooring on behalf of the Harbormaster and certify the results to the Harbormaster in writing. The permittee shall pay the costs of any inspection performed by a contractor on behalf of the Harbormaster.
L. Rental Not Permitted. Except as authorized in Section 17.60.040(B)(1)(a), no mooring may be leased or rented by the permittee to another person except with the written permission of the Harbormaster.
M. Administration. The Harbormaster shall administer all provisions in this section. 27 15-233
N. Reconfiguration of Moorings.
1. No plan, and no amended or modified plain, of reconfiguration of moorings within a mooring field shall be adopted or enacted without advanced notice first sent bmy mail, and if the City has email addresses, by emails to all stakeholders who may be affected by said plan followed by an opportunity for comments and two or more stakeholder meetings allowing for open and reasonable comments and discussions with the persons or agency whohow-have the authority to adopt, or advise on the adoption or enactment of the plan.
Stakeholders would include mooring permittees, residences located within 1,000 feet of the high tide line of any part of the mooring fields) subject to the proposal, and other stakeholders thatey might be impacted by the proposals, including homeowner associations and other organizations whose members include other stakeholders such as the Lido Island Homeowner's Association, the Balboa
Homeowner's Association, Newport Harbor Yacht Club, Balboa Yacht Club, and the other Yacht Clubs in Newport Harbor, If the plan is not adopted or enacted
within 9 months of said stakeholder meeting, then any resubmission of the plan or similar plan, shall be subject to the same required stakeholder meetings before adoption or enactment.
2. Following said stakeholder meetings, any plan of reconfiguration of moorings within a mooring field that is advised by, adopted by, or enacted by the Harbor Commission or by the Harbormaster or any of its agents or committees shall be first subject to the approval of the City Council after first being placed on the regular agenda of the City Council that allows for public comment (not on the City Council's consent calendar).
3. Plan of reconfiguration of -a -moorings as referred to above, shall include Moving moorings to different areas within a mooring field or to a different mooring field, moving moorings closer together either to the side or in front or to the back, moving moorings which would have an affect (negatively or positively) on views from homes, residences, or street ends, within 11000 feet m
15-234
of the high tide mark where moorings may be moved or relocated.
Second Attachment:
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 is in the nature of license for the temporary use of a specific location within Newport Harbor.
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). In the event that the City is able to
and does create new Moorings on or after JanUar'y 1, 2022 [ Error— Should be January 1, 20231, then the City may use such new Moorings (referred to herein as "New Moorings" for the purpose of long term rentals for recreational boat use or may issue a permit, similar to existing permits, for such use. If a Mooring permit is issued or a long term rental is issued each s shall be issued according to a lottery, followed by a waiting list. 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 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.
1. 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)(h) 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 to
15-235
Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1st. b. Mooring of a Tender. A single vessel no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the assigned vessel may be secured to the assigned vessel or may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of the assigned vessel. The vessel must be secured in such a manner so as not to intrude into the fairway or obstruct neighboring permittees. Notwithstanding the single vessel restriction, permitted live-aboards may secure up to two vessels no longer than fourteen (14) feet in overall length to the assigned vessel, to serve as access to and from the assigned live -aboard vessel. c. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbormaster may approve a multiple vessel mooring system in the single anchor mooring areas of Newport Harbor. An application and applicable fee, established by resolution of the City Council, for a multiple vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the Harbormaster, who shall evaluate the application based upon standards established and the application shall be approved if the Harbormaster makes the findings under the applicable standards and those set forth in Section 17.05.140(D) (1).
2. Permit Requirements. Each mooring permit may be issued for up to two persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. Mooring permits shall be subject to the following conditions and requirements, with which mooring permittee(s) shall fully comply: To the satisfaction of the Harbormaster, the mooring permittee(s) shall:
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 30 15-236
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
,
+e
iIRc�ea
impFeving
,
the
+hp
SHqa-dnd
Y,- ., a fil.dc r,.J
Sarccy-vF
- rlA +O
.,
ucm'cut�vrra-rra
,n . , ++ve�s
be
eFgaR ZatieR Af
e that s eh
;hall
at the
exp e Rse—ana
j. Authorize the City, or its designee, to move the vessel on the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster on a temporary basis in the interest of safety, dredging, public works project, or similar necessities at the City's expense, unless the boat owner, or operator, or mooring permittee is in violation of one or more regulations applying to boats or moorings, in which case said move shall be at the expense of both the boat owner and the mooring permittee.
Authorize the City, or its designee to relocate a mooring to a new location on a one-time basis only, within a mooring field, in accordance with a plan of reconfiguration first approved under the following conditions:
1. The clan of reconfieu ration which includes the field has been anaroved by both the Harbor Commission and the Citv Council after proven safety of, lack of difficulty of use of, and accessibility of moorings affected by the reconfiguration, and after stakeholder meetings following reasonable notice by mail to the stakeholders both before and after the study and real life testing in different wind, current and tide conditions in representative areas each of the mooring fields.
2. The new location be as close as Possible to the old location, except as may be approved by the permittee,
15-237
3. The new location for moorings which historically did not have a permanent mooring assigned to another permittee behind or in front of it shall be a similar type of mooring, and the new location for beginning or end of row moorings shall also be either an end or beginning of row mooring, unless otherwise approved by the permittee, and moorings that are within the service area of shore boat service by a yacht club, such as BYC or NHYC, shall not be moved to a location outside the area of shore boat service. k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or his designee, to board the permittee's vessel at anytime to inspect the condition and opera biIityofthem arine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in accordance with applicable laws.
I. If a single mooring permit holder has requested, or will request, a second name to be added as a permit holder for the mooring, the original permittee who made the request will be the "Primary Permittee" and the second permit holder is the "Second Permittee." The addition of, or creation of, an additional permit holder does not result in a transfer of the mooring permit. The Primary Permittee, or his or her successor in interest, such as a person obtaining the permit by inheritance, shall have the right to remove the Second Permittee as a permittee. Following such removal, the Second Permittee shall remain liable for any violations of any City Code or regulations during the time the Second Permittee was a permittee.
3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by a natural person(s) holding title to an assigned vessel. Mooring permits that were issued before >, including the subsequent transfer of such permit to another natural person(s), may be held by, or transferred to, only the following persons:
a. A natural person(s) holding title to an assigned vessel; 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 the period of time prior to distribution of the estate;
c. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a mooring permit, so long as all trustors are natural persons and the primary mooring permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. An approved transferee whose vessel and/or mooring permit are subject to any of the 32 15-238
terms and conditions stated in subsection (E) of this section;" Immediate family," which shall mean the mooring permittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree of consanguinity; e. 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);
f. 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
g. The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club (collectively "yacht clubs") and the Lido Isle Community Association —only for those moorings assigned by the City within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 2011. These designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas in Newport Harbor are graphically depicted by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shall be entitled to a maximum number of moorings identified in NOAA Chart Number 18754 that are located within the yacht club's established mooring fields and at a minimum the current number of moorings assigned to them as of January 13, 2011.
C. Plans and Specifications Required. No mooring permit shall be issued for placing, erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or buoy is constructed:
1. In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by the Harbormaster and at a location approved by the Harbormaster; or
2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring or buoy which have been submitted by the applicant, showing the construction of such proposed mooring or buoy together with the location thereof, and which meet the requirements established in this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbormaster.
D. Late Fees. A late charge shall be added to all payments due but not received by the City by the due date in accordance with Section 17.05.120.
E. Transfer of Permit. New Mooring Permits (permits for the use of a New Mooring as defined issued or in existence with the sole exception of mooring permits that were issued on or before January 1, 2022 [Error should be January 1, 2023) are transferable in accordance with the regulations set forth herein. above, (Moorings issued for the first time on or after January 1.2022 [Error should sai January 1, 20231 ) to a new permit holder "New Permit") Mooring permits are shall be non -transferable. Existing Permits. which are mooring permits to an existing permit holder or the holder's transferee, which permits were In the event an additional name is added to an Existing Permit does not change the 33 15-239
character of the permit which shall still be considered an Existing Permit under these regulations, and the periodic return and signing of a questionnaire or similar request for updated information regarding a mooring or vessel on the mooring, which may ask for an acknowledgement that the permittee has read the mooring regulations, is not, and does not result in the issuance of a New Permit.
ir7� :7.7T.1 ir1. L7��ai�e
No mooring permittee shall transfer a permit for a mooring or buoy granted under the provisions of this chapter, except:
w#i
heirs of law to the seGe nd-degree OfGGRsa Rgi iinifir Gr c9 rrvarrga�vr
1. Except when transferred to immediate family, a mooring permit may only be transferred der this s„hsen+ier, „r t9 „r,e time once in any twelve (12) month period, but additional transfers shall be allowed after that, but only once, in any twelve (12) month period..
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 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 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 34 15-240
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. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with 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; 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.
7. The Harbormaster may approve a one -for -one exchange of moorings between two mooring permittees, subject to compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed by the City.
8. The Harbormaster may approve the changing of an assigned vessel on the permit, subject to 35 15-241
the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee imposed by the City.
9. Following an approved transfer, the Harbormaster shall list the transfer price of the mooring permit on a publicly available website hosted by the City, or on a third party's website under contract with the City to host information regarding mooring permit transfers.
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 (13)(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 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:
36 15-242
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, or its designee, 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 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 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;
2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)(7) and (8) of this section; or
3. The transfer is made pursuant to under subsection (E)(1) (B)(3)(d)) of this section (immediate family).
37 15-243
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 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. Should a mooring revert back to the City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, 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 asset 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 maybe publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City purposes.
Request to Extend Mooring Length or to Relocate to Larger Mooring. m
15-244
1. Review Authority. No mooring lengths shall be extended beyond the designated mooring length for any mooring row; or that will result in extending into or impeding upon any portion of the adjacent fairway(s) to the mooring or otherwise create safety concerns.
2. If a permittee requests or obtains an assignment of a smaller vessel to the mooring and the smaller vessel has a LOA that is equal to or less than the designated length for the row, neither the mooring or the vessel will not be subject to relocation because it is smaller than the designated length for vessels in its row.
3. Handling of Requests.
a. Move to Different Mooring and Row. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that is or will be longer than the assigned vessel and which will extend beyond the designated mooring length for the mooring row, an application request to relocate the mooring shall be submitted to the Harbormaster for consideration and at his or her discretion, may approve the request to relocate to a larger mooring if an appropriate -sized mooring to be exchanged with a mooring in the same mooring field with the consent of the permittee of the other mooring. If the relocation is approved, the existing offshore mooring permit(s) shall be amended to reflect (i) the new assigned mooring location(s), and (ii). the extension of the vessel occupancy length to accommodate a longer vessel up to a maximum of five additional feet in accordance with this subsection, and up to the maximum length of the new row with the approval of the Harbor Commission.
b. Extension within Conforming Row. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that is or will be longer than the assigned vessel and which will not extend beyond the designated mooring length for the mooring row where the mooring is located, an application request to extend the mooring shall be submitted to the Harbormaster for consideration and at his or her discretion, may approve the request to extend the mooring, and if approved, the existing offshore mooring permit(s) shall be amended to reflect the extension Of the mooring length to accommodate a longer vessel up to a maximum of five additional feet in accordance with this subsection, and up to the maximum length of the new row with the approval of the Harbor Commission.
39 15-245
After review by the Harbormaster, applications for the relocation or extension of mooring length in excess of five feet shall be submitted to the Harbor Commission for consideration and rendering of a decision. For applications requiring the approval of the Harbor Commission, the Harbormaster shall present to the Harbor Commission all relevant facts to support the findings included in Section 17.05.140(D)(1).
Example: Permittee A wants to replace Atlantis (40' LOA), which is in a 40' row, with Atlantis 11(42' LOA). A larger mooring is required. Permittee B's Barnacle (41' LOA) is in a 45' row. Permittee C's Calypso (40' LOA) is in 45' row. All three moorings are in the same mooring field. A's mooring assignment can be switched with C, but not with B.
4. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written request for mooring relocation or extension 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. c. Application Requirements. An application for a mooring extension or relocation shall include the following information in addition to such other information as may be required by the Harbormaster:
The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which an amendment to the existing offshore mooring permit or the mooring relocation 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 the proposed longer vessel to be accommodated at the new or extended mooring; 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 or side -tie. .N
15-246
3. Action on Application. Upon receipt of a completed application , the Harbormaster or the Harbor Commission, as applicable, may approve or conditionally approve the relocation an amendment to the offshore mooring permit to allow the extension of the vessel occupancy length (in the event of an application for an unidentified vessel only a conditional approval may be obtained) 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 the assigned vessel occupancy length is filed; b. The proposed extension of the assigned vessel occupancy length Relocation 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) extending beyond the outer boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the designated maximum vessel LOA for the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored.; or
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; and
4. The applicant agrees to cover all costs associated with modifying the length or relocating to the longer mooring, including, but not limited to, any costs associated with relocating mooring anchors and tackle, and any costs associated with resizing mooring tackle to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size or anchor weights).
5. Conditions of Approval., Approval of a request for mooring extension or relocation shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
a. The costs of extension and/or relocation shall be borne by the permittees making the request.
b. The mooring permittee must occupy the new extended
mooring or new relocated mooring with the new vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval; and
41 15-247
3. For a mooring permit that is transferable, the mooring permittee may not transfer the permit or the mooring permittee's rights pursuant to a valid mooring permit, as amended, and such mooring permit and rights pursuant thereto shall not be sold or otherwise transferred until a period of twelve (12) months following the date of occupancy of the mooring with the new vessel. The sale or transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and (F) of this section.
5. Noncompliance with this section will constitute grounds for the Harbormaster to rescind the relocation approval and terminate the amendment to the mooring permit. In the event that the Harbormaster terminates the amendment to the mooring permit issued pursuant to this chapter, Within thirty (30) days of written notice of such recission and termination, if the permittee has moved the new vessel to a different mooring, the permittee shall at its sole expense return its vessel and the displaced vessel to their respective previously -assigned mooring locations, if and when available, if it will not become available, to such other mooring locations as become first available and as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster, and, the mooring permittee may thereafter continue to use the mooring in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of the original offshore mooring permit and subject to all of the terms and provisions of this title applicable to mooring permits. The Intentional Violation of subsection (M)(4)(a) of this section shall be 42 15-248
From: jerry mcgraw
Sent: November 07, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council; [email protected] Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: Mooring Re -co nfigeration
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We as stakeholders of mooring permits have had no workshop type meetings regarding Commissioner Beers mooring realignment proposal. As We can only voice3 minute statements at Commission meetings and neither ask or receive answers to questions, perhaps one of you or some staff would be kind enough to answer a few for me.
As it is stated there will be no "upfront" cost to the existing permittees, what is the projected cost to the City? Whose budget will it come from? How much has already been spent on an untested system for Newport Harbor? Whose budget?
If the City is responsible for maintenance of the Helix system are they going to pay for the chain attached to the Helix anchor and the diver to inspect it and install new chain if necessary? With the Helix system, I'm guessing not assuming that weight will still be used for the other end of the mooring? If that is correct and the scope of the chain rode is reduced from 35' to 25' how much weight will be required for the weighted end? If more than the current minimum of 2000lbs. for a 50' mooring who is responsible for the cost. about $1.00/lb. for the additional weight? Why has the City not tested this system before trying to push it through the objections of the current mooring permittees? This could be easily done using the City's current sandline guest moorings. Such a test could be set up and current permittees could use their own vessels in varying weather conditions and provide feedback to the Commission. I don't believe it is necessary to do a beta test in one of the mooring areas at tax payers expense when there are City sandline moorings to be used.
In reading Commissioner Beer's proposal it appears a driving interest is to create more open space in the harbor and make moorings more affordable. If the city adds their proposed 96 new moorings throughout the harbor what are their proposed rental fees? Using the City's current guest rental of $1.33 per foot per day for a 40' mooring is $53.20/day or long term almost $1600M Is that affordable? If a boater must use a larger mooring due to availability will they be charged for the larger mooring? That's the practice for the guest slips at Marina Park as you pay for a 40' slip, if your vessel is 44' you pay an additional charge. The moorings here in Newport have no shore boat service and the few public docks are already overcrowded and have time limits making shore trips difficult. What will happen when there are 96 more dinghies trying to find a place to park?
If the intent is to truly open more navigable space perhaps the two yacht clubs having single can swing moorings should also be changed to a double row configuration or is dealing with the yacht clubs to much of a political issue.
I have operated boats in his harbor for the past 68 years, including 27 years with the 15-249
sheriff's harbor patrol and it's predecessor the Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks retiring in 1999.
this included one night working in a 26' patrol boat with winds of 70 to 90 kts. here in Newport along with a number of times in winds of 30 kts plus never having a problem working in the various mooring areas.Today as a liveaboard in the harbor I never see the current Harbor services workers or sheriff's deputies out under any sort of extreme weather.
I feel this double row configuration is not in the interest of safe navigation but perhaps only a plan to fill the City's coffers.
Jerry McGraw
Permitted Liveaboard H-032
15-250
From: Keith Garrison
Sent: November 07, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Cheryl Nowak, President; Tom Miller
Subject: Your Proposal Changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gentle Persons,
I wanted to share my opinion as a mooring holder of more than 20 years that I feel you are railroading the current mooring holders into a reconfiguration that is not wanted by the majority of us. There should be transparency and and several public hearings where the proposed changes are discussed and voted on by all the mooring holders in the Harbor.
So I urge you to call for open meetings and share publicly all of your discussions wit any engineering firms analyzing reconfiguring the mooring layout. You are elected and appointed to be working for us and it seems that we were no acknowledged or considered.
Please let me know what positive actions are being considered to remedy this situation.
With best regards,
Keith
Keith Garrison - VP/Gen. Mgr.
GBF Enterprises, Inc.
2709 Halladay St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
714-979-7131 Fax 714-979-1815
www.2bfentemrises.com
[, r4i icI
WB�r
4Ccm�,t's 9whL&Ls Fnreraua
The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary and could be subject to U.S. Export Laws and/or controlled by the US International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) 22 CFR 120-130. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this email has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this document and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, reproduction, or further viewing of this email without 15-251
permission from the author is strictly prohibited. GBF Enterprises Inc. takes no responsibility, either direct or indirect, or any unauthorized dissemination of such data or materials 15-252
From:
larry reid
Sent:
November 07, 2022 9:39 AM
To:
Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission
Cc:
Newport Mooring Association; larry reid
Subject:
Pre -Nov. 9, 2022 meeting comments
Attachments:
council letter -revised for Nov 9.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon,
I have attached a letter addressing some of my concerns about the upcoming agenda items to be presented this Wednesday. Please consider these as you try to make these major changes to the current Title 17 rules.
Sincerely,
Larry Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047.
15-253
OPEN LETTER TO THE DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
P--,11in we
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this letter in an effort to persuade you to head off the current direction of the Harbor Commission in its' effort to not only change the current rules concerning transferability of mooring permits, but also, in my opinion, the outrageous format presented to validate the increase in shore mooring rates. I will follow with a brief family history and comment on the mooring transfer issue and then conclude with a comment on the proposed lease rate increases.
My name is Lawrence Reid. I am a permittee for mooring sites, A-231 and P-047, both an offshore and on shore mooring. I have been so since 2013 when I acquired the permit rights via the open market subject to all requirements and conditions in place at that time. My family has been involved and concerned with Newport Harbor since my grandfather purchased a homesite on 61" Street in 1915 and built a cottage home there in 1917 and continue to be involved to this day. I personally solidified that involvement by finding a complimentary pair of moorings to settle into a "life on the water" situation.
At that time of my searching for two moorings, the management of the moorings fell under the jurisdiction of the OCSO. The "Golden Rule" of trying to purchase permit rights on the open market at that time was to make ABSOLUTELY sure that there was a remaining transfer option available to me after purchase. There were many mooring sites on the market that had already exhausted that option so the due diligence I invested was paramount to preserve that future transfer option for me. While not cheap, the verified confirmation and assurance from the OCSO that I had another transfer available made it doable.
Therefore, I urge you to strongly oppose any new proposal that negates the existing status quo of the ability to transfer permit rights on the private market to not only those permittees that had additional transfer rights conferred to them, but to all mooring permittees as a group.
To the current discussions on the rental rate increases for a shore mooring permit. As proposed, the shore mooring lease fees will be based off of prime commercial property lease rates as indicated in the current commercial tideland appraisal. On the surface, this is certainly not an example of an apple to apple comparison on so many different levels. Shore permittees are already being charged the most per square foot for tideland use when compared to residential dock, pier and commercial tideland rates. It is neither fair nor equitable to make any significant rate increase that does not take into consideration the disproportional fee considerations that the pier permittees do not have to pay for the use of the same tidelands, not to mention the revenue streams available to them for slip or side tie rentals without any restrictions.
When you consider the hoops that I as a shore mooring leasee has to go through, under the current formats, I receive no benefit from my lease. The Harbor Department can rent out my space if unoccupied 15-254
without notice for long periods of time but I can't sublet my mooring without "owning" the boat that is being used. I pay for all of the upkeep without any maintenance monies being set aside to assist in the upkeep. The City keeps it all. As far as insurance coverage goes, I have to indemnify the City whether my boat is on my mooring or not, the City requires the rental craft to indemnify the City prior to use but nowhere in the City Title does it require the transient boat to indemnify me. I am left again, holding a wet, empty paper bag.
Currently, we are now faced with some agenda items to be presented at the November 9, 2022 commission meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend in person. For the life of me I can't understand the massive effort being mustered to completely eviscerate the parity and quality of life that both the on -shore and off -shore permittees should expect.
What is the main push to change what has been the norm for almost forever? To think that a double off- shore mooring is going to improve the off -shore mooring lifestyle is ludicrous in my opinion. Who will pay for the added upkeep for the new common mooring ball? Why would you create a navigational hazard knowing the prevailing winds are from the west in the harbor. The current set-up allows for maximum maneuverability in ALL wind conditions? Now to consider the possibility that in order to use my offshore mooring I would need to first see if my boat has been moved to another part of the harbor for reasons that appear to be so flaky it makes me shudder.
I could go on and on, but let me close by saying, the Harbor Commission needs to quit treating the mooring permittees as the black sheep of the family and quit trying to legislate these ill-founded extra burdens on current permittees.
Thank you for your time and effort. It is not an easy job and you won't please everyone as you know. The current proposed changes need to be "deep sixed" immediately.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047
15-255
From: Stacy Kline
Sent: November 07, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Changes to Newport Harbor Mooring Fields & Title 17 of Newport Beach Municipal Code
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Esteemed City of Newport Beach Councilmembers,
My husband and I are long time Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Holders. We purchased our mooring permit in 2005, and we are deeply connected to this issue. We would like for our current and future City of Newport Beach councilmembers to understand why we are concerned about the proposed changes to the Newport Harbor Mooring Fields and Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing Newport Harbor.
We have several concerns regarding the proposed changes by the Newport Harbor Commission.
Q Protecting our Beautiful Newport Harbor
We understand the value of our exquisite harbor, its importance to our Orange County watershed and marine ecosystem, and its value to our local sailing and watersports community. To that end, we have paid our annual mooring permit fees, scheduled and paid for a biennial mooring overhaul, and have kept our 28' Bristol Channel Cutter in outstanding condition, demonstrating that we have been good stewards of our mooring for over 17 years.
Q Maintaining our Current Mooring Position
My husband and I chose our mooring in the C Mooring field near the Fernando Street dock, specifically for its location near our home. As you know, taking care of a sailboat, monitoring it for sea lions, and keeping it in seaworthy condition, takes constant effort, and having this particular mooring, so close to our home, in no small part has helped us to keep our sailboat in a state that we are proud to share in our Newport Harbor community. Forcing us to move our sailboat to a new mooring position is an unnecessary hardship, especially with regards to the attention we have paid to keep it in such good condition.
Q Maintaining a Safe and Navigable Mooring
The mooring field configuration changes proposed by the Newport Harbor Commission (bow -to -bow shared anchor set-up/bow-to-stern shared anchor set-up and only 20 feet separating the boats) is an unsafe configuration. Given the strong prevailing westerly/southerly winds in Newport Harbor and the strong tidal currents, this extremely close proximity between boats makes mooring extremely challenging and risky given the strong forces involved. Additionally, the Newport Harbor Commission's proposed "sand lines" are untenable in Newport Harbor. Our seafloor consists of muddy silt and any "sand line" on the stern would be covered with muck and unusable.
Q Mooring Extension Restrictions
15-256
Several years ago the city raised the annual fees for mooring permit holders considerably. Since our sailboat is only 28 feet on deck, we reduced our mooring from 45' to 30'. With the current mooring configuration, our sailboat fits comfortably and safely within its mooring footprint. However, our sailboat has a 8 foot bowsprit, and with the proposed close -quarters mooring configuration, our length overall (LOA) will render our mooring too small to accomodate our sailboat. We would gladly return our mooring length to its original 45' size, but we are no longer allowed to do so (not without a $1250 appeals fee that has no guarantee of success). Had we been made aware back of the Newport Harbor Commission's proposed configuration plans back in June 2022, when the final opportunity to lengthen a mooring was offered, we would have requested the change back to our original 45' mooring permit length.
Q Mooring Transferability
As a school teacher and a small business owner, my husband and I are middle-class sailboat owners.
Purchasing a mooring in 2005 for $49,000, because we were told by Newport Beach City officials that it was the only way to secure a mooring in Newport Harbor, was no small investment. We were very grateful to acquire our mooring, and have proudly cared for the mooring and our sailboat ever since.
Although much has been said about the cost of moorings, we have seen no increase in value whatsoever in 17 years of owning our mooring permit. As you can imagine, the proposed changes to remove our ability to transfer our mooring to a new permit holder is deeply concerning. We do not expect to gain anything monetarily from our mooring permit; however, the ability to recoup some of the expense of the initial purchase of this mooring permit is understandable to a councilmember. Several years ago Title 17 was settled law, allowing mooring transferability with reasonable restrictions regarding number of moorings allowed per year, and a transfer fee that serves to restrict the number of transfers annually.
There is no reason to change Title 17 at this point, it will cause harm to current mooring permit holders who have consistently played by the rules, paid their fees, and kept their mooring and vessels in seaworthy condition.
Q Transparency of Mooring Field Planning for all Stakeholders My husband and I were not made aware of the plans to significantly change the configuration of the mooring field of which we are permit holders, and the proposed changes to Title 17 and mooring permit transferability until the October 10, 2022, Newport Harbor Commission meeting. I spoke at this meeting, identified myself as a mooring permit holder, and asked that the mooring permit holders be involved in the planning process due to the significant impact our moorings have had on our lives. I mentioned that we had received no notifications about these plans via mail or email, and that I was startled to realize that there was to be a final vote to proceed during the meeting, rather than simply a discussion on these proposed plans. It is important that all stakeholders feel that "they are part of the solution" and that "things are not just happening to them".
We are planning on attending the next Harbor Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 9, 2022.
We are very grateful for your concern about this issue.
Best regards,
Stacy & Greg Kline
Newport Beach, California
15-257
From: Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty
Sent: November 04, 2022 1:38 PM
To: Beer, Ira
Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: RE: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you Mr. Beer,
Mine is a 50' mooring.
Thank you for the clarification. The 20' seem very light bow to stern with the other boat. I like the option of the sand line... It might ease the access with more space while entering the mooring space.
In you original email, you mentioned the following:
• No upfront cost to existing mooring permittees. If approved as is, the City of Newport Beach will pay all costs for the improvements.
This current proposed initiative will have no change to current mooring permittee transferability of permits as per Title 17 of the Civil Code.
but I have heard that there were conversations about charging the boat owner for the relocation cost.
Which is it please?
I am not sure I can attend the meeting... At what time is it please? Thanks,
Nicolas Jonville
From: Beer, Ira
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 12:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: Re: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
Hello Mr. Jonville,
Thank you for your comments and input. I assure you that all your concerns are taken very seriously. One item mentioned may not be clear from the prior drawings is the increased space between boats in the same row (average about 50' on center) and the increased fairway widths (minimum 60' stern to stern between rows). This allows for an approach from either fairway under prevailing conditions.
15-258
I hope you will be able to attend the Harbor Commission meeting next Wednesday, November 9, 2022 where this initiative will be discussed in detail, and I am sure the commission would love to hear your input.
Best regards,
Harbor Cone rnissiorFer
From: Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty Organization: Nicolas Jonville-JonvilleTeam/Keller Williams Realty Reply -To: "[email protected]"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:19 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Cc: "[email protected]"
Subject: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
Dear Harbor commissioners,
I am a mooring permittee in Newport Beach Harbor, in the A field, near the Balboa Pavilion.
I am very concerned and against the 1- proposed reconfiguration of Newport Beach mooring field (example of America's Cup Harbor) and also 2- strongly against the proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (I believe Title 17) making any relocation at the owner's cost and without consideration for owner's will regarding location.
Regarding #1-
a- I have been a sailor for 40+ years, and the weather and conditions are completely different in the America's Cup Harbor. My boat used to be in San Diego area and I am very familiar with the set-up there. In Newport beach, the impact of wind and currents are much more prominent than in San Diego America's Cup harbor. They are much more challenging in Newport Beach. The new set-up with only 20' or so between two boats (aft or forward) is not reasonable and will likely turn into serious potential issues under medium to strong conditions (wind and current). We see boats dancing by far more than 20' at times with gusts and strong current — It will most certainly result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.
b- The approach will be much more difficult for some of the boats that might have to enter their mooring space in windy conditions with the wind pushing the boat into the mooring, with another boat very close to their boat bow (20' or so). This makes it far more difficult and hazardous compared to going forward, against the wind most of the time (with the wind slowing the boat down), to set the forward mooring line first, upwind ... the safest 15-259
option, and allowed by the current lay -out. The current lay -out has far more than 20' from the bow to the other boat's aft.
c- Any new set-up should be tested on a voluntary basis before any implementation to any larger scale.
d- Again, the proposed changes will most likely result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.
Regarding #2-
a- All boat owners have acquired their mooring permit based on size, and location. Changing the rules by making the boat owners relocate at their cost and without their input/agreement on location is not appropriate, nor fair and any relocation should be with their approval and not at the mooring permittee's cost.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking forward to the discussion and appropriate decision.
Best Regards,
Nicolas Jonville, Newport Beach mooring permit owner
T: 760-207-7130
[email protected]
15-260
From: Karl Drews
Sent: November 04, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council
Subject: Title 17
[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,
My wife and I have been residents of Newport Beach and have had a license for an offshore mooring for 35 years. We oppose the proposed Title 17 for many reasons. The primary reason is the proposed mooring field is dangerous. With the impact of the wind and tides the boater needs to have the option of approaching the mooring from weather direction.
The proposed design does not allow that choice.
Regards,
Karl Drews
15-261
From:
Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty
Sent:
November 04, 2022 12:19 PM
To:
Harbor Commission
Cc:
[email protected]
Subject:
Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
Dear Harbor commissioners,
I am a mooring permittee in Newport Beach Harbor, in the A field, near the Balboa Pavilion.
I am very concerned and against the 1- proposed reconfiguration of Newport Beach mooring field (example of America's Cup Harbor) and also 2- strongly against the proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (I believe Title 17) making any relocation at the owner's cost and without consideration for owner's will regarding location.
Regarding #1-
a- I have been a sailor for 40+ years, and the weather and conditions are completely different in the America's Cup Harbor. My boat used to be in San Diego area and I am very familiar with the set-up there. In Newport beach, the impact of wind and currents are much more prominent than in San Diego America's Cup harbor. They are much more challenging in Newport Beach. The new set-up with only 20' or so between two boats (aft or forward) is not reasonable and will likely turn into serious potential issues under medium to strong conditions (wind and current). We see boats dancing by far more than 20' at times with gusts and strong current — It will most certainly result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.
b- The approach will be much more difficult for some of the boats that might have to enter their mooring space in windy conditions with the wind pushing the boat into the mooring, with another boat very close to their boat bow (20' or so). This makes it far more difficult and hazardous compared to going forward, against the wind most of the time (with the wind slowing the boat down), to set the forward mooring line first, upwind ... the safest option, and allowed by the current lay -out. The current lay -out has far more than 20' from the bow to the other boat's aft.
c- Any new set-up should be tested on a voluntary basis before any implementation to any larger scale.
d- Again, the proposed changes will most likely result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.
Regarding #2-
a- All boat owners have acquired their mooring permit based on size, and location. Changing the rules by making the boat owners relocate at their cost and without their input/agreement on location is not appropriate, nor fair and any relocation should be with their approval and not at the mooring permittee's cost.
15-262
Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking forward to the discussion and appropriate decision.
Best Regards,
Nicolas Jonville, Newport Beach mooring permit owner
T: 760-207-7130
[email protected]
15-263
From: Donald Farley
Sent: November 03, 2022 1:13 PM
To: Harbor Feedback; Beer, Ira
Subject: Proposed Changes to Mooring Fields J and H
Attachments: Newport Harbor Commissioners, 11-2-22a.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Please consider the attached comments.
Thank you.
Don
Mooring J54
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane
Riverside, CA 92307
Phone/Fax (951) 683-1050
Cell/Voice Mail (909) 228-6970
e-mail: [email protected]
Confidentiality Note:
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, protected by applicable legal privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. 15-264
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane, Riverside, CA 92507
Mooring J54
Newport Beach Harbor Commission([email protected]) Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner and Vise Chairman ([email protected]) November 2, 2022
COMMENTS REGARDING: e-mail dated 10/26/2022, from Ira Beer "Important Information Concerning Your Mooring"
Newport Beach Harbor Commission, and/or Ira Beer,
SUMMARY:
At first look, the proposed changes to mooring fields J and H seem desirable, however after further consideration, many of the proposed changes could have undesirable consequences, including impaired safety and functionality.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS INCLUDE:
In general, there is a prevailing wind direction through the harbor. Presently, moored, boats tend to be facing into the wind, which is desirable, and is easier and safer when boats are approaching a mooring.
Furthermore, present spacing allows boats to leave a mooring by going forward into the wind (particularly desirable for sail boats). The proposed plan would have some boats with their stern to the wind, not desirable, and would require most boats to back from a mooring when leaving.
The examples shown for the proposed arrangement show only 40, and 50-foot moorings. Boats in the 30-to-40-foot range should be considered.
While it may be desirable to cleanup the alignment of moorings, that should be possible with the current arrangement, if mooring placement can be as precise as implied for the proposed plan. Also, to prevent mooring buoys from drifting into the fairways, spreader lines could be installed on current buoys.
The desire to add additional moorings is fine if it does not interfere with the functionality of existing moorings. Furthermore, there will never be enough moorings.
Though I have sailed in Newport Harbor for over 50 years and had a mooring there for more than 30 years, I would welcome a discussion with, and input from, others with more experience regarding the management of moorings.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 909-228-6970 and/or [email protected] Thank you for your consideration.
i
r
Donald V. Farley
Newport Harbor Commissioners, 11-2-22a
15-265
OPEN LETTER TO THE DISTINGUISHED
MEMBERS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
P--,11in we
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this letter in an effort to persuade you to head off the current direction of the Harbor Commission in its' effort to not only change the current rules concerning transferability of mooring permits, but also, in my opinion, the outrageous format presented to validate the increase in shore mooring rates. I will follow with a brief family history and comment on the mooring transfer issue and then conclude with a comment on the proposed lease rate increases.
My name is Lawrence Reid. I am a permittee for mooring sites, A-231 and P-047, both an offshore and on shore mooring. I have been so since 2013 when I acquired the permit rights via the open market subject to all requirements and conditions in place at that time. My family has been involved and concerned with Newport Harbor since my grandfather purchased a homesite on 61" Street in 1915 and built a cottage home there in 1917 and continue to be involved to this day. I personally solidified that involvement by finding a complimentary pair of moorings to settle into a "life on the water" situation.
At that time of my searching for two moorings, the management of the moorings fell under the jurisdiction of the OCSO. The "Golden Rule" of trying to purchase permit rights on the open market at that time was to make ABSOLUTELY sure that there was a remaining transfer option available to me after purchase. There were many mooring sites on the market that had already exhausted that option so the due diligence I invested was paramount to preserve that future transfer option for me. While not cheap, the verified confirmation and assurance from the OCSO that I had another transfer available made it doable.
Therefore, I urge you to strongly oppose any new proposal that negates the existing status quo of the ability to transfer permit rights on the private market to not only those permittees that had additional transfer rights conferred to them, but to all mooring permittees as a group.
To the current discussions on the rental rate increases for a shore mooring permit. As proposed, the shore mooring lease fees will be based off of prime commercial property lease rates as indicated in the current commercial tideland appraisal. On the surface, this is certainly not an example of an apple to apple comparison on so many different levels. Shore permittees are already being charged the most per square foot for tideland use when compared to residential dock, pier and commercial tideland rates. It is neither fair nor equitable to make any significant rate increase that does not take into consideration the disproportional fee considerations that the pier permittees do not have to pay for the use of the same tidelands, not to mention the revenue streams available to them for slip or side tie rentals without any restrictions.
When you consider the hoops that I as a shore mooring leasee has to go through, under the current formats, I receive no benefit from my lease. The Harbor Department can rent out my space if unoccupied 15-266
without notice for long periods of time but I can't sublet my mooring without "owning" the boat that is being used. I pay for all of the upkeep without any maintenance monies being set aside to assist in the upkeep. The City keeps it all. As far as insurance coverage goes, I have to indemnify the City whether my boat is on my mooring or not, the City requires the rental craft to indemnify the City prior to use but nowhere in the City Title does it require the transient boat to indemnify me. I am left again, holding a wet, empty paper bag.
Currently, we are now faced with some agenda items to be presented at the November 9, 2022 commission meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend in person. For the life of me I can't understand the massive effort being mustered to completely eviscerate the parity and quality of life that both the on -shore and off -shore permittees should expect.
What is the main push to change what has been the norm for almost forever? To think that a double off- shore mooring is going to improve the off -shore mooring lifestyle is ludicrous in my opinion. Who will pay for the added upkeep for the new common mooring ball? Why would you create a navigational hazard knowing the prevailing winds are from the west in the harbor. The current set-up allows for maximum maneuverability in ALL wind conditions? Now to consider the possibility that in order to use my offshore mooring I would need to first see if my boat has been moved to another part of the harbor for reasons that appear to be so flaky it makes me shudder.
I could go on and on, but let me close by saying, the Harbor Commission needs to quit treating the mooring permittees as the black sheep of the family and quit trying to legislate these ill-founded extra burdens on current permittees.
Thank you for your time and effort. It is not an easy job and you won't please everyone as you know. The current proposed changes need to be "deep sixed" immediately.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047
15-267
Fred Fourcher
507 Larkspur
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners,
I have lived in Corona Del Mar since 1979 and have had my offshore and onshore moorings since 1976. My offshore mooring and onshore mooring are on Balboa Island and adjacent to each other.
It is stated that the intent is to improve the harbor to the benefit of mooring permittees.
What is being decided is if the City of Newport Beach can move our boat to a different mooring permanently without our permission and at our expense, is clearly not for the benefit of mooring permittees and has some other purpose. Mooring locations are picked for a reason, Permittees acquired permits in specific locations such as proximity to their house, yacht club or shore mooring. This major disruption will result in lawsuits and political fallout. The people who you are supposed to be serving will do whatever it takes to keep the current order in the harbor. This is simply a bad idea with massive un-intended consequences.
This proposal is deeply troubling because the Harbor Commission is usurping the decision - making responsibility from our Elected Officials. There is no reason to be revising the city harbor code for a pilot test of a questionable mooring system.
This proposal is not for the benefit of the Mooring Permittees. I along with others will mobilize to fight the Harbor Commission to keep this poorly conceived proposal from being implemented.
Fred Fourcher
15-268
From:
Admin
Sent:
December 01, 2022 4:52 PM
To:
Harbor Commission
Cc:
NMA Email Board
Subject:
The Stakeholder Meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Chair Scully,
Thank you for the thoughtful response to the NMA concerns. We appreciate the Sub - Committee's opinions on these matters and look forward to working through the issues with you and other Commissioners. As some of us have discussed, it might be a good idea for representatives of the NMA to meet with some representatives of the Commission prior to a large-scale meeting. It would be nice to discuss the format of Stakeholder meetings to keep them businesslike and informative. For example, it might be helpful to first state the issues to be discussed, followed by presentations by some Commissions, and then presentations by some NMA members, then questions taken that stay relevant to the presentations. In a smaller "get to know each other" meeting, we might also be able to clear up any misunderstandings about the intent behind the proposed language of the Title 17 changes (and if there are misunderstandings, if the intent can be made more clear). We can also see if there have been any items or issues that have already been resolved, so they would not need to take up time at a larger meeting. December 14 would be a good date for a get to know each other meeting, but it currently conflicts with the scheduled Stakeholder meeting.
Coincidently, many of our members have requested the December 14t" stakeholder meeting be rescheduled as it falls on the opening day of the 114t" Newport Harbor Boat Parade, and some have stated that attendance and parking when they return to their home might be problematic. Many mooring permittees are residents of Newport Beach and many of them are concerned about traffic, particularly when returning home as people are coming to and leaving places to view the Parade. Some members have also looked at the City Calendar and have expressed confusion after seeing that the Harbor Commission meeting now shows as "cancelled." As an additional note, our members are quite distressed with concerns over safely getting onto and their moorings with a boat within 20 feet of their bow, and concerns about where exactly their boats may end up. In the spirit of the holidays, it would be a nice gesture of grace and a moment of reprieve to allow our members to peacefully enjoy the holidays.
Given the benefits of having a smaller meeting to get to know the NMA leadership, and us getting to know some members of the Committee prior to the large Stakeholder meeting, perhaps a few of us could meet with a few members of the Harbor Commission on December 14 and reschedule the Stakeholder meeting for after the holidays.
15-269
In the event you think it wise to reschedule the larger meeting, we will be more than happy to notify all our members.
As a side note, in reviewing prior year agendas, the Harbor Commission has cancelled the December meeting on many occasions. Therefore, we hope the commission will find this request in line with past practice.
Sincerely,
The Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https.11newportmooringassociation. org
Scott Karlin
Cell: 714-815-8557
ScottKarlin(c_ Yahoo. com
15-270
From: Eric
Sent: November 28, 2022 8:55 AM
To: Blank, Paul
Cc: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Re: Harbor Commission Subcommittee Stakeholder Meeting on Optimizing the Mooring Fields within Newport Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Blank,
Thank you for the email. At your earliest opportunity, please provide a copy of the proposed changes to Title 17. Please also provide a copy of the specific proposed physical changes to the mooring fields, including the proposed new locations of each specific mooring. Thank you.
Best regards,
G. Eric Young
922 W. Balboa Blvd. Apt. A
Newport Beach, CA 92661
818-458-2570
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:01 PM Blank, Paul wrote:
Dear YOUNG, GEORGE ERIC,
The Newport Beach Harbor Commission Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Harbor Commission 2022 Objective
2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests will be holding a stakeholder meeting to discuss optimizing the mooring fields. All interested parties may appear and present comments regarding this matter. The meeting will be held at the Newport Beach Civic Center at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach and located in the Civic Center Community Room.
Date: 12/14/2022 at 5:00pm
Location: Newport Beach Civic Center Community Room
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
For questions or feedback regarding this stakeholder meeting or topic, please email [email protected].
15-271
7" ""r-'
Pad Blank
Harbormaster
�-, � � polank�newpartdean+rca.yav
949-270-8158
15-272
From: Dan Wesley
Sent: December 05, 2022 1:55 PM
To: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Comments
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Whom it may Concern:
Why? That seems to be the question most often asked when discussing the proposed changes to the harbor.
We have been a mooring permittee for 30 years and,in all that time, we have only heard words like "charming", "beautiful", and "magnificent" used to describe the harbor from both permittees and guests alike. It begs the question why is a change even needed when we are already at the top of our game.
We understand there is a need for additional moorings. Surely, an alternative solution could be reached to solve that problem with much less money outlay and disruption.
In addition, the proposed plan to place like boats together in terms of lenght does not appear to be sustainable. Clearly, there is no way of knowing what Ienghts will be needed in the future so, once again, we would ask why?
On a very personal note, we have been good stewards of our mooring for a very long time: maintained the mooring ball as required and have always been respectful of others in the harbor. We have purchased necessary items particular to our mooring and distance from the dock etc. Plus, because our boys and grandchildren have enjoyed time on our boat that it now feels like home. To imagine relocating is, truthfully, heartbreaking and, again, we ask why.
We apologize if these questions have been addressed and there is a very important reason that all this disruption, money out lay and upsettingness is required. We were not aware any of this was in the works and still wouldn't if the Harbor Association had not kindly informed us. While we realize it is our responsibility to stay informed by attending the Harbor Commission meetings,we just always felt the best interests of the mooring permittees were being served and didn't feel a need.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns and we hope you weigh all the problems these changes are going to cause and just ask yourself why.
Mr. and Mrs. Wesley
15-273
From: Admin
Sent: December 06, 2022 7:36 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Sally Peterson Cc: NMA Email Board; Harbor Commission
Subject: NMA Response to Balboa Island Stakeholders
Attachments: NMA response for Balboa Island Stakerholders - 12-6-22.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Lee and all,
Thank you for hosting the Balboa Island Stakeholder meeting last Tuesday. While we were disappointed the Harbor Commission did not allow us to present our perspective, we appreciate your invitation to follow up in writing. On the attached word document, the NMA has responded (in green) to the Harbor Commissions remarks.
Lee, do you have a mailing list and/or email list of all Island homeowners, that you could share with us, or could you pass on information, such as the attached to all the residents of the Island. It could save the cost of having to use a mail service to provide our perspective to people who might be concerned with both the specific plan being proposed, and also with the changes in the Harbor code that might allow such plans in the future to be imposed on homeowners without City Council approval and without prior stakeholder meetings.
To summarize, while we appreciate the original intent of this objective to straighten up some moorings, we object to the wholesale realignment plan and related Harbor Code revisions which we find problematic for the following reasons:
1. Increase in Authority/Uncertainty: The proposed harbor code revision gives the harbormaster the power to relocate boats on both shore moorings and offshore moorings at his discretion for purposes other than immediate necessity. This creates uncertainty for all.
2. Safety for mooring users: An overwhelming majority of mooring permittees are opposed to these changes for safety and other reasons. The new mooring plan pushes mooring rows closer together which will make using mooring more difficult and less safe.
3. Safety for other harbor users: Widening the fairways and moving the mooring boundaries will invite more boat traffic and larger/noisier boats to cruise through the mooring fields and around the bay beaches of Balboa Island. The mooring fields serve as a nice buffer zone for Balboa Island and serve as a refuge for paddleboarders, kayakers and children who wish to avoid boat traffic.
4. Views: We are certain implementing the proposed double row system and adding more moorings will have serious impacts on harbor views. The existing mooring alignment has good spacing between boats. Pushing the mooring rows within 20 feet of each other will have an impact on views
15-274
5. Unnecessary Costs: The harbor commission indicated it would cost approximately $250- 350k to implement the plan in the C field. If we extrapolate, that would be an expense of approximately $1 million throughout the harbor. We have not seen any updated cost estimates, but we believe it is unwise to spend taxpayer money to make the mooring fields less safe for the mooring permittees.
We have elaborated on these points 1-4 in the attached document.
Thank you,
The Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https.11newportmooringassociation. org
15-275
Newport Mooring Association
Concerns with Major Changes in Mooring Fields
and Related Harbor Code Revisions
The Newport Mooring Association has enjoyed a great relationship with neighboring homeowners, and we wish to bring to the attention of our wonderful neighbors what may be mutual concerns. While the NMA has additional concerns about the proposals being considered and looks forward to collaborating with the City on voluntary incremental improvements, there are some items that may affect our Balboa Island neighbors:
1. The proposed code changes may allow "Realignment" without homeowners knowing how their views will be affected and may or may not require City Council approval - We are hopeful the City illustrates how all home views may be affected before any boats or moorings are moved in the name of realignment. The NMA also hopes that it is expressly stated that any such plan will require City Council approval. Some people see the proposed new regulations as not requiring this approval, so any ambiguity should be eliminated.
Harbor Commission Response: First off, we would like to thank the Balboa Island residents that provided us their time and attended the presentation on Optimizing the Mooring Fields.
We sincerely appreciate your time and your questions. Considering the handout that the Newport Mooring Association provided, we wanted to offer our thoughts on each point.
As was presented in the meeting, this plan will go to City Council for their review, and they will ultimately make the decision on this plan. Additionally, they will need to fund it as this plan calls for no cost to the Mooring Permittee.
NMA's Reply: We understand the plan being proposed will need to be approved by the City Council. However, with the proposed code change as currently written, this might not be the case in the future. If a few years from now the Harbormaster or Harbor Commission comes up with a new plan which moves moorings they may not need Council approval because the proposed change to the City Code would give them the right to move boats for relocation purposes, not just for necessity. The existing harbor code allows the Harbormaster the right to move boats as "necessary" which has always been interpreted to mean a very temporary move for emergencies and for dredging, after which the boats are then returned to their original location. They recognized that re- organizing mooring fields on a permanent basis is not a "necessity" and that is why they want to change the language to indicate they can move boats for re -organization purposes. Nowhere in the proposed revision does it say they will first need to obtain City Council approval for future mooring realignments. Future realignments may obscure homeowner views, and the mere right to do so without City Council approval will create on -going uncertainty. We believe it is extremely important make sure the City Code clearly states that City Council approval shall be required for all such changes in any mooring relocation plan, now or in the future.
15-276
In addition, the Commission's response, stated above, does not address the request that the exact location of each new mooring row be shown to all stakeholders in relation to all mooring fields. Including a provision for stakeholder and council review for any mooring realignment will allow input from homeowners and residents that may have their views obscured and will also help insure that "favoritism," or the perception of favoritism, does not play a role in who gains and who may lose part or all of their water views.
2. Dangerous for kayakers, paddleboarders, and swimmers - We believe pushing mooring rows close together will increase the risk of collision when accessing a mooring and will make it much more dangerous for kayakers and paddle boarders to use the protected waters of the mooring fields. Increasing the size of fairways within mooring fields to invite general navigation by powerboats will invite higher speeds, more powerboat traffic, and more wakes, and will therefore place those kayakers, paddleboarders and children at greater risk. Today they frequently seek refuge from boats underway in the harbor by ducking into the moori ng fields. The U.S. Federal Code of Regulations specifically discourages general navigation near mooring fields for safety purposes: "The areas ... should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels".
Harbor Commission Response: Overall the Mooring Fields today are disorganized and difficult to navigate. The intent of this Optimization of the fields is to provide sufficient space for mooring permittees to navigate to their mooring and to provide more open water for all harbor stakeholders. By providing more space and controlling the mooring equipment better all users of the harbor will have a better experience and safer waterways.
NMA's reply: First, the mooring fields, which were set up to moor boats and not for general navigation, have never been intended to be used for general navigation.
Currently, with few exceptions, for the purpose of mooring a boat, the fairways are easily managed for getting on and off moorings. There is no reported history of problems, and boat owners with moorings find the new plan dangerous and unsafe because it would place boats within 20 feet of another boat in front or behind their boat, which will present dangers in getting onto a mooring in many wind and current conditions that exist in Newport Harbor, including occasional Santa Ana winds.
More important for residents is that the proposed plan gives rise to safety concerns for children, swimmers, kayakers, and paddle boarders. At the meeting with homeowners, major concerns were expressed by homeowners who observed that moving the mooring field boundary line away from Balboa Island will create a large fairway and invite more boat traffic (and larger and faster boats) along the bay beaches frequented by children and others. Currently, the mooring fields create a buffer zone that deters larger boats from hugging the island. Narrower fairways both inside a mooring field and at the perimeter of the mooring fields, like small alleyways, keep traffic and speeds down.
These concerns are echoed in the Federal Code of Regulations that suggest strongly that it is unsafe to invite general navigation into the mooring field area. Do homeowners really want the Horn Blower or other large loud boats hugging Balboa Island or weaving their way in and out of mooring fields, and now being able to do so at higher speeds made possible because the Harbor Commission has widened the fairways? Widening 15-277
fairways inside mooring fields, like widening roadways, will only invite more boat traffic, and at higher speeds, making these areas of refuge and quietude dangerous for swimmers, paddle boarders and kayakers. Children at play should not have to worry about additional boat traffic and turning boat props.
3. Unpleasant aesthetics - We believe the existing distance between mooring rows and boats provides pleasant views for all to enjoy. Pushing boats together will create a "wall of boats" that may impair public views. The "parking lot look" of boats may be far less enjoyable than the picturesque views we now see. As one award -winning local photographer has stated "No one has ever painted a picture of boats in a marina, but there are thousands of paintings of boats swaying naturally at anchor," and the new proposal makes no sense from an aesthetic point of view.
Harbor Commission Response: During the presentation last night, Commissioner Beer provided a slide showing the "B" Field before and after. These slides demonstrated that the views would be improved, not reduced, or create a "wall of boats". The fairways will be significantly wider and the water between the mooring field and the beach will almost double. Multiple homeowners commented that their view would be considerably better than it is today.
NMA's reply: We agree that a few homeowners and public views will be marginally improved at the expense of other homeowners and residents whose harbor views will be obscured, and at the expense of the safety issues as discussed above. Who will be favored and who will not, is unknown. It's basic math. Two 40-foot boats pushed together with a crisscross of buoys and mooring lines between them separated by only 20 feet, in effect, will create a wall of boats now 100 feet wide. Homeowner lots on Balboa Island near the moorings are 30 feet wide. The proposed double row/tandem mooring system will be three times as wide as a home's lot looking out from a patio or boardwalk. Commissioners provided aerial or overhead renderings that do not reflect the actual lateral view perspective from a home, end of street, or boardwalk. The NMA provided an image of the real lateral view at the double row mooring field of America's Cup. In our opinion, this real -life image looking out at an actual double row field proves many views will be impaired relative to the existing appropriately spaced mooring rows. The Commission's response also does not address the aesthetics of looking out at a "parking lot" of boats and eliminating the picturesque view we all enjoy today. Additionally, the pleasant view of smaller boats quietly passing by at very low speeds, will be replaced by additional traffic with larger noisier boats weaving in and out of the proposed wider fairways chasing out swimmers, paddle boarders and kayakers, or endangering these activities for those willing to venture into the new traffic. 15-278
4. Negative impacts of adding more moorings - We believe it is unwise to add new moorings to our busy harbor. Where are these folks going to park their cars and launch their dinghies? Where are the restroom facilities, if any, to be located? Harbor Commission Response: As everyone knows, Newport Harbor is currently challenged on having available slips and/or moorings. This Optimization plan came from the Harbor Commission studying ways to provide for more affordable access to Newport Harbor. We are not recommending adding a significant number of new moorings, only working on ways to make the Harbor better and provide for more access.
NMA's reply: The Commission is considering a plan intended to add approximately 100 new moorings to the current 600 moorings in the fields in question. That's hardly insignificant. Adding more moorings will have negative impacts on public views, vehicle parking, dinghy docks, trash collection, and any restroom or lack of restroom facilities, as well as the harbor in general. 100 additional yachts on moorings will also increase the copper in the water, and Newport Harbors has been asked by the local State Water Quality Control Board to reduce the copper in the harbor. What is more, there are plenty of vacant moorings available for rent via the city mooring sublet program. If longer term rentals are needed, the City has created the shortage by not allowing mooring holders the right to rent their moorings, which is allowed in some other harbors in California. Allowing such rentals would provide immediate affordable moorings for the same number of boats, all at no cost to the City. In fact, if the City were to charge a small fee for the right to rent a mooring, the City would raise revenue for harbor improvements, such as beachside harbor racks for paddle boards and kayaks, as well as additional small boat and dinghy docks. 15-279
From: Lee Pearl
Sent: December 06, 2022 9:19 AM
To: Admin; [email protected]; Ken Yonkers; cynthia shaffer Cc: NMA Email Board; Harbor Commission
Subject: Re: NMA Response to Balboa Island Stakeholders Attachments: NMA response for Balboa Island Stakerholders - 12-6-22.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of the NMA Board: Thank you for your follow-up information. I have modified the distribution list to include the Presidents of the three Associations on the Island. Since we facilitated a meeting and have not taken a formal position on the proposal, we will be unable to distribute the response to our residents.
There is also conflicting information between the Harbor Commission and NMA. We have observed based on comments at the meeting that Balboa Island Bayfront owners may actually have better views with the proposed plan. Also, NMA goals relate to mooring owners and does not take a long-range view of the harbor's future operations and benefits. As a result, we will need to extract the BIIA from this process. We will continue to make sure our residents are informed of meeting dates and actions related to this matter. Thank you for attending our meeting and your efforts.
Lee Pearl BIIA Local Government Representative.
From: Admin
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 7:35 AM
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected]
; [email protected] ; Sally Peterson
Cc: NMA Email Board ; [email protected]
Subject: NMA Response to Balboa Island Stakeholders
Hi Lee and all,
Thank you for hosting the Balboa Island Stakeholder meeting last Tuesday. While we were disappointed the Harbor Commission did not allow us to present our perspective, we appreciate your invitation to follow up in writing. On the attached word document, the NMA has responded (in green) to the Harbor Commissions remarks.
Lee, do you have a mailing list and/or email list of all Island homeowners, that you could share with us, or could you pass on information, such as the attached to all the residents of the Island. It could save the cost of having to use a mail service to provide our perspective to people who might be concerned with both the specific plan being proposed, and also with the changes in the Harbor code that might allow such plans in the future to be imposed on homeowners without City Council approval and without prior stakeholder meetings. 15-280
To summarize, while we appreciate the original intent of this objective to straighten up some moorings, we object to the wholesale realignment plan and related Harbor Code revisions which we find problematic for the following reasons:
1. Increase in Authority/Uncertainty: The proposed harbor code revision gives the harbormaster the power to relocate boats on both shore moorings and offshore moorings at his discretion for purposes other than immediate necessity. This creates uncertainty for all.
2. Safety for mooring users: An overwhelming majority of mooring permittees are opposed to these changes for safety and other reasons. The new mooring plan pushes mooring rows closer together which will make using mooring more difficult and less safe.
3. Safety for other harbor users: Widening the fairways and moving the mooring boundaries will invite more boat traffic and larger/noisier boats to cruise through the mooring fields and around the bay beaches of Balboa Island. The mooring fields serve as a nice buffer zone for Balboa Island and serve as a refuge for paddleboarders, kayakers and children who wish to avoid boat traffic.
4. Views: We are certain implementing the proposed double row system and adding more moorings will have serious impacts on harbor views. The existing mooring alignment has good spacing between boats. Pushing the mooring rows within 20 feet of each other will have an impact on views
5. Unnecessary Costs: The harbor commission indicated it would cost approximately $250- 350k to implement the plan in the C field. If we extrapolate, that would be an expense of approximately $1 million throughout the harbor. We have not seen any updated cost estimates, but we believe it is unwise to spend taxpayer money to make the mooring fields less safe for the mooring permittees.
We have elaborated on these points 1-4 in the attached document.
Thank you,
The Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https://newportmooringassociation . org
15-281
Newport Mooring Association
Concerns with Major Changes in Mooring Fields
and Related Harbor Code Revisions
The Newport Mooring Association has enjoyed a great relationship with neighboring homeowners, and we wish to bring to the attention of our wonderful neighbors what may be mutual concerns. While the NMA has additional concerns about the proposals being considered and looks forward to collaborating with the City on voluntary incremental improvements, there are some items that may affect our Balboa Island neighbors:
1. The proposed code changes may allow "Realignment" without homeowners knowing how their views will be affected and may or may not require City Council approval - We are hopeful the City illustrates how all home views may be affected before any boats or moorings are moved in the name of realignment. The NMA also hopes that it is expressly stated that any such plan will require City Council approval. Some people see the proposed new regulations as not requiring this approval, so any ambiguity should be eliminated.
Harbor Commission Response: First off, we would like to thank the Balboa Island residents that provided us their time and attended the presentation on Optimizing the Mooring Fields.
We sincerely appreciate your time and your questions. Considering the handout that the Newport Mooring Association provided, we wanted to offer our thoughts on each point.
As was presented in the meeting, this plan will go to City Council for their review, and they will ultimately make the decision on this plan. Additionally, they will need to fund it as this plan calls for no cost to the Mooring Permittee.
NMA's Reply: We understand the plan being proposed will need to be approved by the City Council. However, with the proposed code change as currently written, this might not be the case in the future. If a few years from now the Harbormaster or Harbor Commission comes up with a new plan which moves moorings they may not need Council approval because the proposed change to the City Code would give them the right to move boats for relocation purposes, not just for necessity. The existing harbor code allows the Harbormaster the right to move boats as "necessary" which has always been interpreted to mean a very temporary move for emergencies and for dredging, after which the boats are then returned to their original location. They recognized that re- organizing mooring fields on a permanent basis is not a "necessity" and that is why they want to change the language to indicate they can move boats for re -organization purposes. Nowhere in the proposed revision does it say they will first need to obtain City Council approval for future mooring realignments. Future realignments may obscure homeowner views, and the mere right to do so without City Council approval will create on -going uncertainty. We believe it is extremely important make sure the City Code clearly states that City Council approval shall be required for all such changes in any mooring relocation plan, now or in the future.
15-282
In addition, the Commission's response, stated above, does not address the request that the exact location of each new mooring row be shown to all stakeholders in relation to all mooring fields. Including a provision for stakeholder and council review for any mooring realignment will allow input from homeowners and residents that may have their views obscured and will also help insure that "favoritism," or the perception of favoritism, does not play a role in who gains and who may lose part or all of their water views.
2. Dangerous for kayakers, paddleboarders, and swimmers - We believe pushing mooring rows close together will increase the risk of collision when accessing a mooring and will make it much more dangerous for kayakers and paddle boarders to use the protected waters of the mooring fields. Increasing the size of fairways within mooring fields to invite general navigation by powerboats will invite higher speeds, more powerboat traffic, and more wakes, and will therefore place those kayakers, paddleboarders and children at greater risk. Today they frequently seek refuge from boats underway in the harbor by ducking into the moori ng fields. The U.S. Federal Code of Regulations specifically discourages general navigation near mooring fields for safety purposes: "The areas ... should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels".
Harbor Commission Response: Overall the Mooring Fields today are disorganized and difficult to navigate. The intent of this Optimization of the fields is to provide sufficient space for mooring permittees to navigate to their mooring and to provide more open water for all harbor stakeholders. By providing more space and controlling the mooring equipment better all users of the harbor will have a better experience and safer waterways.
NMA's reply: First, the mooring fields, which were set up to moor boats and not for general navigation, have never been intended to be used for general navigation.
Currently, with few exceptions, for the purpose of mooring a boat, the fairways are easily managed for getting on and off moorings. There is no reported history of problems, and boat owners with moorings find the new plan dangerous and unsafe because it would place boats within 20 feet of another boat in front or behind their boat, which will present dangers in getting onto a mooring in many wind and current conditions that exist in Newport Harbor, including occasional Santa Ana winds.
More important for residents is that the proposed plan gives rise to safety concerns for children, swimmers, kayakers, and paddle boarders. At the meeting with homeowners, major concerns were expressed by homeowners who observed that moving the mooring field boundary line away from Balboa Island will create a large fairway and invite more boat traffic (and larger and faster boats) along the bay beaches frequented by children and others. Currently, the mooring fields create a buffer zone that deters larger boats from hugging the island. Narrower fairways both inside a mooring field and at the perimeter of the mooring fields, like small alleyways, keep traffic and speeds down.
These concerns are echoed in the Federal Code of Regulations that suggest strongly that it is unsafe to invite general navigation into the mooring field area. Do homeowners really want the Horn Blower or other large loud boats hugging Balboa Island or weaving their way in and out of mooring fields, and now being able to do so at higher speeds made possible because the Harbor Commission has widened the fairways? Widening 15-283
fairways inside mooring fields, like widening roadways, will only invite more boat traffic, and at higher speeds, making these areas of refuge and quietude dangerous for swimmers, paddle boarders and kayakers. Children at play should not have to worry about additional boat traffic and turning boat props.
3. Unpleasant aesthetics - We believe the existing distance between mooring rows and boats provides pleasant views for all to enjoy. Pushing boats together will create a "wall of boats" that may impair public views. The "parking lot look" of boats may be far less enjoyable than the picturesque views we now see. As one award -winning local photographer has stated "No one has ever painted a picture of boats in a marina, but there are thousands of paintings of boats swaying naturally at anchor," and the new proposal makes no sense from an aesthetic point of view.
Harbor Commission Response: During the presentation last night, Commissioner Beer provided a slide showing the "B" Field before and after. These slides demonstrated that the views would be improved, not reduced, or create a "wall of boats". The fairways will be significantly wider and the water between the mooring field and the beach will almost double. Multiple homeowners commented that their view would be considerably better than it is today.
NMA's reply: We agree that a few homeowners and public views will be marginally improved at the expense of other homeowners and residents whose harbor views will be obscured, and at the expense of the safety issues as discussed above. Who will be favored and who will not, is unknown. It's basic math. Two 40-foot boats pushed together with a crisscross of buoys and mooring lines between them separated by only 20 feet, in effect, will create a wall of boats now 100 feet wide. Homeowner lots on Balboa Island near the moorings are 30 feet wide. The proposed double row/tandem mooring system will be three times as wide as a home's lot looking out from a patio or boardwalk. Commissioners provided aerial or overhead renderings that do not reflect the actual lateral view perspective from a home, end of street, or boardwalk. The NMA provided an image of the real lateral view at the double row mooring field of America's Cup. In our opinion, this real -life image looking out at an actual double row field proves many views will be impaired relative to the existing appropriately spaced mooring rows. The Commission's response also does not address the aesthetics of looking out at a "parking lot" of boats and eliminating the picturesque view we all enjoy today. Additionally, the pleasant view of smaller boats quietly passing by at very low speeds, will be replaced by additional traffic with larger noisier boats weaving in and out of the proposed wider fairways chasing out swimmers, paddle boarders and kayakers, or endangering these activities for those willing to venture into the new traffic. 15-284
4. Negative impacts of adding more moorings - We believe it is unwise to add new moorings to our busy harbor. Where are these folks going to park their cars and launch their dinghies? Where are the restroom facilities, if any, to be located? Harbor Commission Response: As everyone knows, Newport Harbor is currently challenged on having available slips and/or moorings. This Optimization plan came from the Harbor Commission studying ways to provide for more affordable access to Newport Harbor. We are not recommending adding a significant number of new moorings, only working on ways to make the Harbor better and provide for more access.
NMA's reply: The Commission is considering a plan intended to add approximately 100 new moorings to the current 600 moorings in the fields in question. That's hardly insignificant. Adding more moorings will have negative impacts on public views, vehicle parking, dinghy docks, trash collection, and any restroom or lack of restroom facilities, as well as the harbor in general. 100 additional yachts on moorings will also increase the copper in the water, and Newport Harbors has been asked by the local State Water Quality Control Board to reduce the copper in the harbor. What is more, there are plenty of vacant moorings available for rent via the city mooring sublet program. If longer term rentals are needed, the City has created the shortage by not allowing mooring holders the right to rent their moorings, which is allowed in some other harbors in California. Allowing such rentals would provide immediate affordable moorings for the same number of boats, all at no cost to the City. In fact, if the City were to charge a small fee for the right to rent a mooring, the City would raise revenue for harbor improvements, such as beachside harbor racks for paddle boards and kayaks, as well as additional small boat and dinghy docks. 15-285
From:
L. Scott Karlin
Sent:
December 12, 2022 8:12 PM
To:
Scully, Steve; Beer, Ira; Blank, Paul
Cc:
Jerry LaPointe; John Fradkin; Wade Womack; Megan Delaney; George Hylkema
Subject:
Summary of Meeting re Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Harbor Commissioner Chair, Scully, Vice -Chair Beer, and Harbormaster Blank, Thank you for taking the time for the video conference last week with some of the Newport Mooring Association's Directors John Fradkin, Wade Womack, Jerry LaPointe, and myself, Scott Karlin. We understand that our discussions were intended only to express some of your, and some of our, personal views and opinions and were not intended to, and did not, necessarily express the views or opinions of other members of the Harbor Commission or of the NMA. I would have liked to get this to you sooner, but I was unable to address this over the weekend.
I would like to summarize some of the ideas discussed, and a few other items that may not have been discussed.
A. Regarding i7.6o.04o B 3 and related code change. As we might have discussed at the time or in earlier discussions, changing around the language regarding transferability in any way appears to be both unnecessary and is causing a great deal of anxiety to permittees. For example, any reference to the date of issuance of an existing permit will cause a great deal of unnecessary confusion. In part this is because when a family member is added to a permit, or when a second name is added to a permit, or when a permit is reissued to a transferee, or even when filling out the annual information for where it says the permit is "being issued", can make it look like these are new permits or permits issued or reissued after a certain date. Rather than specify that these situations are exempt, it is far better to leave the language regarding transferability as is.
We assume that the language was suggested to cover a situation that does not yet exist, namely, creating new moorings that will be given away by lottery and not rented. Until and unless the City acquires or creates new moorings and then issues permits for these moorings by way of a sale or lottery (vs entering into long term rental agreements for these newly created moorings), there is no need for a harbor code change to reference the non -transferability of these newly created moorings. Therefore, there is no need to change the code regarding transfer rights to such new moorings until there is a plan submitted and approved by the City Council regarding (a) what to do with new moorings which do not currently exist, and (b) if and when they are created if they will be rented by the City or granted by way of a permit. Only if such newly created 15-286
moorings were to come into existence and the City decides not to rent them would any language be needed to address transferability of such moorings.
At the meeting it was noted that might have been a misunderstanding with respect to the proposed Harbor Code revisions in that the commissions who attended the meeting stated the proposed changes were not intended to change the transferability rights of existing mooring permits, and that there appeared to be an understanding that any existing permit and any revisions, modifications, or re -issuing of the permit, will remain transferable in accordance with the procedures for transfer stated in the code.
As mentioned above, in our view, and in the view of our members, there is really no current need for clarification about transferability of currently non-existent newly created moorings. However, if and when that were to occur, and if and when the City to decides not to rent them but instead decides to issue permits for them, and in relation to such issuance of such new permits, the City at that time wants to make them non- transferable, then at that time, we can have a conversation about what language would be appropriate to make sure that concerns set forth above are covered. In the meantime the unnecessary and premature suggested code change distracts from the discussion about the proposed realignment plan.
B. Regarding the conditions under which the Harbormaster may move boats. Again, there may have been some misunderstanding on this issue. We now understand that the intent was not to give the Harbormaster the right to create plans for reorganization of moorings, now or in the future, but rather to make it clearer when the Harbormaster had the right to move boats for different types of necessities. We were also advised that these types of decisions could be subject to appeal, and the procedures for appeal are in the code. We were concerned that the new language, while an improvement, did add a "catch all" that boats could be used for "general welfare" which seemed very overbroad. I suggested just adding other specific language, such as harbor maintenance, dredging, to avoid a very overbroad statement. After all, the code currently allows for moving boats for necessity and has never included the reference to "general welfare" . I have included the proposed language below.
C. Removal of boats smaller than the designated size of the mooring. The commissioners present seemed to agree that any language in the proposed changes that allowed for the removal from a mooring of a vessel which was 5 feet shorter than the designated length of the mooring size shown on the permit, needed to be corrected, and a request has already been made to remove such language. In other words, if you have a mooring permit for a 50 foot mooring, but currently have a 40 foot boat on that mooring, the boat will stay on the 50 foot mooring, and if the 50 foot mooring were to be moved 15-287
to a different row, the 40 foot boat would not end up on a mooring that was designated as a 40 foot mooring.
D. Eliminate putting into the Harbor Code, details of decisions that should be made by the Harbormaster. We discussed the disadvantages of including the size, shape, and quality, and size, color, and spacing of spreader line floats in the code itself, and the advantages of allowing the Harbormaster to set up the allowed methods regarding the speaderlines or pick-up lines which might vary somewhat for different sized boats and different methods for securing a boat to a mooring. There appeared to be agreement that a good number of these specifics regarding spreader lines and pick-up lines should be left to the Harbormaster's best judgment, and not be put in the code, and that these changes were already in progress.
While we agreed to disagree about aspects of the plan of reorganization, and/or if additional objective data would be helpful, we all agreed that avoiding misunderstandings was always a good idea and these types of informal discussions can go a long way for open discussions which in the end benefits the boating community and the public at large.
If there is anything above that you believe does not accurately reflect our discussion, please let me know.
Best regards,
Scott Karlin
Cell: 714-815-8557
Work: 714-731-3283
A. Current Recommended 17.60.040 B 3 and 17.60.040 E
This change should only be considered if and when (a) new moorings are created by the City, and (b) the City for some unknown reason decides to issue new permits for these new moorings instead of just renting them out, then and only then should the City decide if it wants to make the newly created and issued 15-288
permits transferable. What is more, if that were to occur, given the prohibition on transfer under 17.25.130, the Harbormaster can simply state on the newly created mooring permit form that "This Permit is non -transferable," and as such no code change would be needed.
Currently, the proposed changes creates a lot of unnecessary anxiety, including concerns that permits considered reissued, amended or otherwise modified because a permittee has added a name to a permit, transferred the permit to another person, or simply filled out the annual information questionnaire with current information on a boat and current contact information, could be considered by some people to be a permit "issued" or "reissued" at some date in the future. Again, there is no current need for any change in the code under either
17.60.040 B3 or under 17.60.040 E
B. Future ability for the Harbor Master or Harbor Commission to execute another realignment plan without the City Council approval.
NMA Modified Language:
Authorize the City, or its designee, to move the vessel on the mooring to another when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster, to address a hazard to safety, public health, harbor maintenance or dredging, for such length of time as is reasonably necessary for such purposes, Following such move, the Permittee may appeal to the Harbor Commission for reinstatement of the vessel to the mooring if such conditions would then allow pursuant 17.65. If moving the vessel was due to a violation by the permittee of his or her obligation under the Harbor Code, then such move shall be at the permittee's expense.
C. Concerns about having to move to a smaller mooring because an assigned boat is smaller than the size allowed on the mooring.
A permit holder holding a permit for a mooring who has a vessel assigned to the mooring shall not be subject to having the vessel assigned to the mooring, or the mooring itself, reassigned to a smaller mooring, or relocated to a row of smaller moorings, because the vessel assigned to the mooring is shorter than the maximum size vessel designated for that mooring. 15-289
From: chris bliss
Sent: December 12, 2022 8:26 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Proposed Mooring Field Changes
Attachments: moorings.doc
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear harbor commission,
Please see the Word document and attached diagrams regarding the proposed mooring field changes.
Thank you,
Christopher Bliss
Current approach to mooring
15-290
Normal and safest approach to mooring
is into wind and current, and straight on,
with Both mooring bouys to windward.
Plenty of maneuvering room is needed.
15-291
Proposed double mooring arrangement with unsafe approach. 15-292
Approaching boat must navigate around moored boat to approach mooring. In certain conditions th-Is would be extremely challenging_ Lack of maneuvering space could male _
this very hazardous.
15-293
Christopher Bliss
24101 Gourami Bay
Dana Point CA 92629
Tel 949-887-9737
November 28, 2022
To: Newport Beach City Council Members.
Subject: Moorings.
Dear City Council members,
I would like to share a few of my thoughts pertaining to the mooring discussion at the last City Council meeting on October 12, 2022.
1) I believe that the council is coming up with solutions to problems that do not exist. In my 40+ years as an avid sailor and 30+ years as a mooring owner I have never met another mooring owner who has complained about any safety issues or navigation issues which warrant any of the extreme changes that you are proposing. In fact, the proposal of having boats 20 feet apart bow to bow, or stern to stern will create multiple safety issues if enacted. For example, the other day I was on my boat on my C section mooring.
The wind was blowing from the NE in excess of 20 knots AND the tide was running out of the harbor at 4 to 5 knots. These are extremely challenging conditions to approach my mooring, going into the wind AND tide even with plenty of open room both in front of, and behind my mooring. My sailboat is 38 feet long and weighs almost 9 tons. If there was a moored boat within 20 feet either in front or behind me, it would severely limit maneuverability space and could lead to disaster. 2) Conditions in the mooring fields are completely different than in a marina, where everything is stationary. On a mooring, everything is constantly in motion. Boats need room to float fore and aft and sideways. When the tide is low, there is much more slack on the mooring lines and the amount of swing can be extreme. When the tide is high, mooring lines are tighter and the swing of each boat is much less.
For the most part, the present mooring configuration works. When there are problems with boats getting too close to each other on their moorings, they are adjusted on an individual basis. The idea that all the moorings should be 20 feet apart, bow to bow, or stern to stern, in nice, neat, regimented rows is not practical, and would be extremely problematic and potentially dangerous in real world conditions. 3) Navigation in the fairways could be easily improved by ensuring that all mooring buoys be attached together by a line which is visible, or with floats. This is an easy remedy which would keep free-floating buoys from drifting into the fairways.
4) Eel grass...... there is no eel grass growing at the depth of the mooring fields. The bottom of the mooring fields is mud. Eel grass grows in 3 to 9 feet of water. 5) If safety on the water is really a major concern in Newport Harbor, I would suggest you should be monitoring the Duffy rentals, not the moorings. My daughter and some friends rented a Duffy in the harbor with some friends last year. They were handed the keys by the person in charge and were told "Have fun!" There were no instructions as to the rules of the road, basic seamanship, rights of way, etc. I have often seen Duffys go directly in front of sailboats, leading to collisions. I have seen people drunk, swimming and diving off Duffys in the main channel on busy weekends with lots of boat traffic.
I don't know if any of the council members are sailors or own moorings, but next time the conditions are like this (wind at 20+ and fast tide running) I invite any of you to go sailing with me to see firsthand how challenging this can be. My only requirement is that you know how to swim.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Christopher Bliss
15-294
From:
Beer, Ira
Sent:
December 13, 2022 7:18 PM
To:
Nick Aliberti
Cc:
Blank, Paul
Subject:
Re: Mooring Configuration
Hello Mr. Aliberti,
Thank you for your comments and for attending the last two Harbor Commission meetings relating to the subject matter above. Your input is taken very seriously. To your point regarding spacing, when boats are properly moored there is little shifting of mooring weights forward to aft as there is not much area for the wind to catch vs broadside winds that would attempt to push boats laterally. The new configuration provides more average space between boats in the same row. Additionally, there are many instances where boats are currently less than 20' apart laterally. The reconfiguration will improve that distance significantly.
Your input will be made part of the materials for all to review when this matter is next on a Harbor Commission Meeting agenda. Please feel free to continue to participate in future meetings and try to attend the public stakeholder meeting being held as follows:
Date: 12/14/2022 at S:OOpm
Location: Newport Beach Civic Center Community Room
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA. 92660
Best regards,
r._ Trr Rrs--
Harb4rCommiss7oD r
LlY�Er�heirr8t�Y4iYedCNta.d�v
(9") 702-6r00
From: Nick Aliberti
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 5:19 PM
To: "Beer, Ira"
Subject: Mooring Configuration
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ira Beer:
I have attended the last couple of meetings where the new Mooring Configuration has been discussed.
The heliacal mooring screws were planed, then eliminated because of cost and difficulty servicing them.
Board members criticized the alignment of the moorings in the J section.
Seasoned mooring service people explained how the winds and currents move different sized boats out of alignment.
Now the plan has evolved so we keep our original weights. 15-295
The point that seems to be overlooked is that if we move all of the moorings closer together while using the same weights, the boats will still move with the winds and currents, resulting in higher risk of collisions.
I cannot support the plan.
Sincerely, Nick Aliberti J-310
15-296
From: chris bliss
Sent: December 14, 2022 2:26 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: America's Cup Harbor pictures and video
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Newport Beach City Council Members.
Subject: Moorings.
Dear City Council members,
I have tried to keep an open mind as to the mooring field changes that you are proposing for Newport Harbor, So, yesterday I drove to San Diego, rented a boat, and went to America's Cup Harbor to see for myself exactly the kind of mooring system you want to implement in our Harbor.
This is what I found:
Newport Harbor is one of the most picturesque locations in the world. America's Cup Harbor in San Diego looks like the COSTCO parking lot. This system would be extremely detrimental to the beauty of our harbor if adopted. Also, it is a harbor within a harbor, completely protected from currents and strong winds, and has totally different conditions from Newport Beach. This fore and aft arrangement has boats much too close together and there is no maneuvering room with this mooring system, making it incompatible with the conditions in Newport. If this system were implemented in Newport, there would inevitably be collisions, entanglements in mooring lines and possible injuries.
Going onto a mooring is not like parking a car...... conditions must be favorable, and how the boat approaches the mooring is critical. Many times in my 30+ years as a mooring owner I have attempted to go onto my mooring when the wind was blowing hard, I was able to grab the spreader line but the wind, or current, or both, was so strong that even as I tried to secure the line to my boat with all of my strength, it was ripped from my hands, I had to run back to the cockpit and take the helm, go forward and around, and take another attempt at securing to the mooring. If there were other boats in front or behind me, we would have crashed into each other and damage or injuries were likely to occur.
Please see the video and pictures I took yesterday at America's Cup Harbor:
15-297
https://blissphotography.smugmug.com/Americas-Cup-Harbor-Boat-parking-Lot/ Why are you trying to cram this terrible plan down our throats? It will be detrimental to the views of the homeowners, terrible for the boaters who use the moorings, and will negatively impact the beauty of our harbor.
The places in our harbor where the moorings are misaligned and there are stray buoys in the fairways can be easily fixed without disrupting hundreds of people and waisting millions of tax dollars that could be put to much better use elsewhere.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Christopher Bliss
15-298
From:
Jennifer Krestan
Sent:
December 15, 2022 12:15 PM
To:
Harbor Feedback; Beer, Ira; Cunningham, Scott; Yahn, Don; Williams, Gary; Harbor Commission; Marston, Marie; Scully, Steve; Svrcek, Rudy; Blank, Paul
Cc:
Newport Mooring Association
Subject:
Re: Newport Harbor Mooring Field Reconfiguration - Two questions [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners:
1. Why was the mooring field with the least exposure to tides, currents, and wind events chosen for the first test installation of the proposed redesigned mooring field instead of one of the mooring fields that experiences all the negative factors in the extreme?
Normally when one is designing or installing a new product, whether it is a dog collar or a space shuttle, it is tested under worse -case -scenario conditions. The opposite of this tried-and-true method is being implemented with the choice of the test mooring field location.
2. Has anyone on the Newport Beach Harbor Commission reached out to the San Diego Board of Port Commissioners to find out why the America's Cup Harbor design has not been implemented in any other area in San Diego Harbor in the past 40 years? Thank you,
Jennifer Krestan
15-299
From: Tim Lewis
Sent: December 15, 2022 10:20 PM
To: Blank, Paul
Subject: Mooring meeting
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Paul it really seemed unfair or just plain ignorant to have that meeting during the boat parade. What boat event is more important in Newport? It could have been changed.
Tim Lewis
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
15-300
From: Jim Palmer
Sent: December 20, 2022 1:13 AM
To: Beer, Ira
Cc: Blank, Paul; Harbor Commission
Subject: Comments & Questions ahead of 1/11/2023 Harbor Commission meeting Attachments: Newport Beach residents weigh in on a p... pdf; Newport Beach to consider trial 4-month... pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Vice Chairman Beer et a
Harbor Commission
City of Newport Beach
Again, thank you for your position on the Harbor Commission and choosing to tackle the important issues impacting our harbor.
This message is to share my views on Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchanges Requests ahead of the 1/11/2023 Harbor Commission meeting.
I am a mooring permit holder and attended the 11/9/2022 Harbor Commission meeting, the 12/14/2022 stakeholder meeting and have read everything I can locate on the City's website about the topic. My views are as follows:
a) Comment: I support the commission proceeding toward testing one or two mooring rows for the proposed mooring reconfiguration b) Comment: I strongly oppose any Title 17 changes until after stakeholders can apply the 'learnings' from the test rows and then, and only then, propose relevant and appropriate changes to Title 17
c) Questions: I spoke at the 12/14/2022 stakeholder meeting and, while discussing the Title 17 redline was not an option as revisions were underway with the city attorney, I suggested the commission approve a test of the mooring reconfigurations prior to changing Title 17. Your reply was that changes to the Title 17 are necessary prior to conducting a test. My time was up and you did not elaborate, however my follow up questions could/should have been:
1. By what authority are changes to Title 17 necessary to become city 15-301
ordinance prior to testing the feasibility of the proposed mooring reconfiguration? Harbor Commission? City? County? State? Federal?
2. By what means can the process be changed to approve a test prior to making any changes to Title 17?
For reference, the City has precedent testing concepts prior to making changes. One example is the temporary closure of Tustin Ave at Cliff Dr while the city considers the traffic impact of the Mariners Mile development project. (LA Times articles attached)
d) Comment: I urge the Harbor Commission to hold a stakeholder meeting dedicated specifically to address the Title 17 redline version at least two weeks prior to the Harbor Commission putting such redline version to a vote.
Such a stakeholder meeting is appropriate given the strong stakeholder interest and response to the prior redline versions released for the 10/12/2022 and 11/09/2022 Harbor Commission meetings, respectively.
Thank you for taking my views under consideration and thank you again for all you do for the city.
Jim Palmer
Mooring Permit D10
949-433-6512
15-302
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times Daily Pilot SUBSCRIBE LOG IN C�
NEWS
Newport Beach residents weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Avenue
A
5 9
ROAD
CLOSED
All. Mblaww"
Temporary barricades block access along Ocean View Avenue at Tustin Avenue on Wednesday. (Kevin Chang / Staff Photographer)
BY LILLY NGUYEN I STAFF WRITER
JUNE 29, 2022 6 PM PT
9 The barricades that were part of a traffic experiment on Tustin Avenue at Cliff Drive are getting removed, but residents worried about street safety there will have to wait a little https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu /7 15-303
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times longer for a resolution to an issue initially brought before the City Council last year.
Barriers were first placed in November as part of what was to be a four -month -long traffic period study prompted by Newport Beach residents who live on Tustin and Ocean View avenues. The closure was extended during the spring as the city continued to study the issue.
On Tuesday night, the Newport Beach City Council unanimously moved to remove those barricades but directed staff to return with more options on how to help alleviate traffic in the area.
Both Tustin and Ocean View avenues are relatively narrow, spanning about a width of 28 feet curb to curb. Both streets lack public sidewalks and allow for parking, which forces pedestrians and bikers into the street, residents told the City Council last August.
Residents on Tustin Avenue argue that many of their houses are what they call "front - loaded," meaning garages and driveways on that street take direct access from the street as opposed to garage access from alleys — common for houses in Newport Heights.
City staff said during the study traffic volume decreased on Tustin Avenue south of where the barricades were installed and that, over time, drivers familiar with the area avoided Tustin Avenue altogether. But staff noted an increase in traffic on adjacent streets like Ocean View Avenue, where daily traffic increased by 51%, and Avon Street, adjacent to businesses where daily traffic increased by 49 Residents spoke both in support and against a permanent closure, with a number of others living nearby arguing that the closure would just push traffic onto their streets.
Up for discussion by the City Council Tuesday night were some options: to make the closure permanent, to make Tustin and Ocean View avenues one-way, to establish a full or partial closure at Avon Street, to provide parking restrictions on one side of Tustin https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 2/7 15-304
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times Avenue, to construct a sidewalk on one side of Tustin or to install streetlights on both Tustin and Ocean View.
Mayor Kevin Muldoon did not favor the option of making the closure permanent. 'r ! '---J� -1 Q ` it
- 40���41
_I: r
Temporary barricades block access along Ocean View Avenue at Tustin Avenue on Wednesday. (Kevin Chang / Staff Photographer)
"There's a perception that it's a zero sum game. It's either got to be a cul-de-sac at the top or nothing at all and at the same time, I heard people say, `Just please do something.' I don't support the permanent closure at the top, but I think a lot has to be done — not just something," said Muldoon.
Councilwoman Diane Dixon acknowledged that Tustin Avenue is one of the city's most narrow streets and was a thoroughfare from Pacific Coast Highway. She said the easiest, most logical safety enhancement would be to install sidewalks. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 3/7 15-305
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times Dixon said she knows sidewalks are controversial in Newport Heights, but she considers them a reasonable solution if the No. 1 concern is safety. "I hear or saw [in the presentation] nobody wants sidewalks. No one wants limited parking. No one supports any other solution other than closing off Tustin up at Cliff. I think there still is a solution there somewhere," said Dixon, who added that she wanted to see more options. "We have heard from the residents. I think it is unanimous of the residents on Tustin that they're pleading with their city for help. I would like a little give and take on both sides — the city and the residents. Can we find a solution?" Councilwoman Joy Brenner said traffic would only continue to get worse in the area.
She suggested making it more difficult for people who don't live in Newport Heights to use the streets there as a thoroughfare.
"I'm afraid ... if we take away this dead end ... that [residents are] all going to be coming back to us at some point in time and saying you've got twice as many people coming up Riverside and Tustin to go through Newport Heights as we need," said Brenner.
Brenner said she felt it would be short-sighted for city officials and residents to attempt to return traffic to the way it was when "we know it's going to get worse with all that development down there.
"There is no way in the world it's not going to get worse. Bureaucrats are notorious for if it doesn't affect them during their election cycle, then they don't do anything about it, but we need to do something now before those developments get built down there that is going to significantly reduce traffic in Newport Heights." Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.
NEWS I NEWPORT BEACH
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 4/7 15-306
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times 1 All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
Enter email address
SIGN ME UP
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.
Lilly Nguyen
0 Twitter ® Email f Facebook
Lilly Nguyen covers Newport Beach for the Daily Pilot. Before joining the Pilot, she worked for the Orange County Register as a freelance reporter and general assignment intern. She earned her bachelor's in journalism at Cal State Long Beach. (714) 966-4623.
MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
NEWS
1 Menorah lighting at Fashion Island marks the start of Hanukkah 13 minutes ago
NEWS
With acquisition, Banning Ranch Conservancy looks ahead to restoration after remediation
.t 35 minutes ago
x
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 5/7 15-307
2/19/22, 5:1 PM
LATEST NEWS
Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times NEWS
Suspect in fatal Huntington Beach shooting arrested in Moreno Valley Dec. 19, 2022
NEWS
Conservationists near goal of turning Orange County oilfield into nature preserve
Dec. 19, 2022
Daily Pilot e-newspaper: Sunday, Dec. 18, 2022
Dec. 18, 2022
Affordable housing project in Costa Mesa to house 8 at -risk families in time for the holidays Dec. 17, 2022
Alex Rounaghi's election brings new voice to Laguna Beach politics Dec. 17, 2022
Sage Hill student ranks among top four classical pianists in 2023 YoungArts competition Dec. 17, 2022
Daily Pilot e-newspaper: Saturday, Dec. 17, 2022
Dec. 17, 2022
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 6/7 15-308
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach resid nts weigh in on a partial permanent closure of Tustin Av nue - Los Angeles Times Subscribe for unlimited access
Follow Us
F-1 F-1 F-1
eNewspaper
Coupons
Find/Post Jobs
Place an Ad
Media Kit: Why the
L. A. Times?
Bestcovery
Copyright © 2022, Los Angeles Times I Terms of Service I Privacy Policy I CA Notice of Collection I Do Not Sell My Personal Information https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2022-06-29/newport-beach-residents-weigh-in-on-a-partial-permanent-closure-of-tustin-avenu 7/7 15-309
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne portB ach to consid r trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times Daily Pilot SUBSCRIBE LOG IN C�
NEWS
Newport Beach to consider trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Avenue
4 Up for council consideration is the temporary closure of Tustin Avenue at Cliff Drive for a four -month study period where city staff will analyze the closure's impacts on traffic. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
BY LILLY NGUYEN I STAFF WRITER
AUG. 21, 2021 1:56 PM PT
CH
After a brief break for the month of August, the Newport Beach City Council will be returning to the dais this upcoming Tuesday to consider the temporary and partial https://www.latimes . com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2021-08-21 /newport-beach-to-consider-tem porary-partial-closu re-of-tusti n-avenue /5 15-310
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne portB ach to consid r trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times closure of Tustin Avenue.
The proposed closure would be at the north end of Tustin Avenue at Cliff Drive, where residents between Avon Street and Cliff Drive on Tustin and Ocean View Avenue have raised concerns about existing safety concerns between pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the area.
Both Tustin Avenue and Ocean View Avenue are relatively narrow — about 28 feet in width curb to curb — with parking allowed on both sides and no public sidewalks, meaning that pedestrians often have to walk into the street.
Additionally, due to the width of the streets, opposing traffic typically will need to pull to the side or yield to pass. City staff said the average daily combined traffic on both streets — between April 19 to 25 this year — was 945 trips. Trips associated with the residential homes in that area accounted for about 295, so there were about 65o non - local trips via Tustin and Ocean View avenues combined.
A staff report prepared for the meeting said that a neighborhood petition was submitted to the city, including the signatures of at least 26 property owners of the 31 residential addresses there. Three properties were vacant.
City staff said the closure would be for a temporary four months, during which staff would analyze any potential impacts on traffic and determine whether or not a permanent closure of that street to vehicular traffic should be considered by the City Council.
Council members will also hear several appeals, including one on the denied removal of two lemon -scented gum eucalyptus trees on Ashford Lane.
Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.
https://www.latimes . com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2021-08-21 /newport-beach-to-consider-tem porary-partial-closu re-of-tusti n-avenue 2/5 15-311
2/19/22, 5:1 PM
NEWS I NEWPORT BEACH
Ne portB ach to consid r trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times 1 All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
Enter email address
SIGN ME UP
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.
Lilly Nguyen
V Twitter rim Email f Facebook
Lilly Nguyen covers Newport Beach for the Daily Pilot. Before joining the Pilot, she worked for the Orange County Register as a freelance reporter and general assignment intern. She earned her bachelor's in journalism at Cal State Long Beach. (714) 966-4623.
MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
NEWS
1 '} Menorah lighting at Fashion Island marks the start of Hanukkah 13 minutes ago
NEWS
M With acquisition, Banning Ranch Conservancy looks ahead to restoration after remediation
34 minutes ago
https://www.latimes . com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2021-08-21 /newport-beach-to-consider-tem porary-partial-closu re-of-tusti n-avenue 3/5 15-312
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne portB ach to consid r trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Av nue -Los Angeles Times NEWS
Suspect in fatal Huntington Beach shooting arrested in Moreno Valley Dec. 19, 2022
NEWS
Conservationists near goal of turning Orange County oilfield into nature preserve
Dec. 19, 2022
LATEST NEWS
Daily Pilot e-newspaper: Sunday, Dec. 18, 2022
Dec. 18, 2022
Affordable housing project in Costa Mesa to house 8 at -risk families in time for the holidays Dec. 17, 2022
Alex Rounaghi's election brings new voice to Laguna Beach politics Dec. 17, 2022
Sage Hill student ranks among top four classical pianists in 2023 YoungArts competition Dec. 17, 2022
Daily Pilot e-newspaper: Saturday, Dec. 17, 2022
Dec. 17, 2022
https://www.latimes . com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/2021-08-21 /newport-beach-to-consider-tem porary-partial-closu re-of-tusti n-avenue 4/5 15-313
2/19/22, 5:1 PM Ne port B ach to consid r trial 4-month, partial closure of Tustin Av nue - Los Angeles Times Subscribe for unlimited access
Follow Us
F-1 F-1 F-1
eNewspaper
Coupons
Find/Post Jobs
Place an Ad
Media Kit: Why the
L. A. Times?
Bestcovery
Copyright © 2022, Los Angeles Times I Terms of Service I Privacy Policy I CA Notice of Collection I Do Not Sell My Personal Information https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilotlnews/story/202l -08-21 /newport-beach-to-consider-temporary-partial-closure-of-tusti n-avenue 5/5 15-314
From: Peter Giammanco
Sent: December 26, 2022 1:57 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Proposed City Mooring Plan
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As a property owner on South Bay Front I am extremely concern over the proposed changes to the mooring plan. Specifically -
1. 1 paid nearly $7 million for the property I own and one of the major selling aspects was the fact that my property looks out to the bay right between two moorings. In other words - unobstructed views of the bay. Based in the proposal I've seen my unobstructed view will now become obstructed thereby negatively affecting the value of my property - let alone the view we have of the bay. This will cause us great economic harm and uncomfortableness.
2. The increased traffic and safety of the bay. By increasing the moorings and placing them closer together there will be an increased likelihood of incidents due to tight maneuvering required of boat owners as well as increased traffic throughout the waterways.
We strongly object to the changes.
Thank you for your consideration of these facts.
Pete Giammanco
902 South Bay Front
Newport Beach, CA. 92662
15-315
From: Donald Farley
Sent: December 26, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Beer, Ira; Harbor Feedback
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Response following 12/14/22 Stakeholder meeting Attachments: Ira Beer, Newport Harbor Commissioners, 12-22-22.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner and Vise Chairman ([email protected]) Newport Beach Harbor Commission([email protected]) December 22, 2022
COMMENTS REGARDING: Stakeholder meeting on 12/14/2022 regarding proposed plan to reorganize moorings in Newport Harbor
Ira Beer, Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner and Vice Chair, and Newport Beach Harbor Commission Comments dated November 2, and November 13, 2022 were sent. After attending the December 14, 2022 meeting, the following comments are submitted for your consideration.
SUMMARY:
It seems that at least two goals of proposed changes to the mooring fields in Newport Harbor (Safety and improved utilization) would be compromised by the proposed plan and would be at odds with the best interests of the harbor as a whole.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS INCLUDE:
The presentation by Mr. Beer addressed several issues, but two of the more consequential seemed to be 1) safety, and 2) open water/improved utilization within the harbor.
Regarding safety:
a) Everyone wants a safe harbor, so there is no argument, except how to achieve safety. b) There has been no data presented that would suggest that the current mooring arrangement is unsafe c) The near unanimous opinion of individuals with a practical knowledge of boating is that proposed changes would create a less safe environment for mooring users and for human -powered craft (e.g., kayaks, paddleboards, fishermen, etc.) using the harbor. i. Mooring users; due to the close proximity of boats (bow to stern) when approaching or departing a mooring due to current and wind conditions common in the harbor. ii Human -powered craft; due to the added open water that would deprive them of the relative protection that they seek in the present mooring fields.
d) In short, unnecessary motor -powered craft should not be encouraged in mooring fields.
Regarding open water/improved utilization:
a) The current mooring arrangement actually encourages harbor use by encouraging human -powered activities while discouraging unnecessary motor -powered craft in mooring fields where they shouldn't be in the first place.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS:
15-316
Using Americas Cup Harbor in San Diego as a model for proposed changes at Newport Beach Harbor:
a) For all of its claimed virtues, even after its approximately 40 years of existence, the arrangement there has not been copied significantly elsewhere. There may be a reason why. b) Americas Cup Harbor seems a poor match for Newport Harbor i. There is much less public use (Kayaks, paddleboards, etc.) in Americas Cup Harbor ii. Newport Harbor has much different current and wind conditions.
Floats on mooring anchor chains to protect eel grass:
a) Many, probably most, parts of the harbor do not have eel grass to protect. i. Periodic dredging has a greater impact.
b) Floats would compromise the holding power of mooring anchors. c) Floats could interfere with deep draft boats.
Segregating boats by size:
a) Segregation (except for the largest boats) is unnecessary and undesirable. Segregation would unnecessarily require the relocation for many boats, take away the character of the harbor, make the harbor look like a parking lot instead of its current magical appearance, and compromise the relative protection of mooring fields for human -powered craft/activities. i. Many (me included) have had their moorings for many years (in my case 30 years) and do not want their mooring location changed.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 909-228-6970 and/or [email protected] Thank you for your consideration.
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane
Riverside, CA 92507
909-228-6970
[email protected]
Mooring J54
c. Newport Mooring Association ([email protected])
15-317
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane, Riverside, CA 92507
Mooring J54
Ira Beer, Harbor Commissioner and Vise Chairman ([email protected]) Newport Beach Harbor Commission([email protected]) December 22, 2022
COMMENTS REGARDING: Stakeholder meeting on 12/14/2022 regarding proposed plan to reorganize moorings in Newport Harbor
Ira Beer, Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner and Vice Chair, and Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Comments dated November 2, and November 13, 2022 were sent. After attending the December 14, 2022 meeting, the following comments are submitted for your consideration.
SUMMARY:
It seems that at least two goals of proposed changes to the mooring fields in Newport Harbor (Safety and improved utilization) would be compromised by the proposed plan and would be at odds with the best interests of the harbor as a whole.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS INCLUDE:
The presentation by Mr. Beer addressed several issues, but two of the more consequential seemed to be 1) safety, and 2) open water/improved utilization within the harbor.
Regarding safety:
a) Everyone wants a safe harbor, so there is no argument, except how to achieve safety. b) There has been no data presented that would suggest that the current mooring arrangement is unsafe.
c) The near unanimous opinion of individuals with a practical knowledge of boating is that proposed changes would create a less safe environment for mooring users and for human - powered craft (e.g., kayaks, paddleboards, fishermen, etc.) using the harbor. i. Mooring users; due to the close proximity of boats (bow to stern) when approaching or departing a mooring due to current and wind conditions common in the harbor. ii. Human -powered craft; due to the added open water that would deprive them of the relative protection that they seek in the present mooring fields. d) In short, unnecessary motor -powered craft should not be encouraged in mooring fields.
Regarding open water/improved utilization:
a) The current mooring arrangement actually encourages harbor use by encouraging human - powered activities while discouraging unnecessary motor -powered craft in mooring fields where they shouldn't be in the first place.
Ira Beer, Newport Harbor Commissioners, 12-22-22