15 - Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests — Newport Beach City Council, May 23, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

15-318

OTHER OBSERVATIONS:

Usina Americas CUD Harbor in San Dieao as a model for Droaosed chanaes at NewDort 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.
�z'
� i� f
Donald V. Farley
c. Newport Mooring Association ([email protected])
Ira Beer, Newport Harbor Commissioners, 12-22-22

Page 2 of 2 ends

15-319

From: Miller, Chris
Sent: January 03, 2023 4:11 PM
To: Mike Fleming
Subject: RE: Posted notice of public hearing
Hi Mike,
Thank you for reaching out and for expressing your concerns to me.

Unfortunately, however, I am not directly involved with this project as mooring responsibility has since been shifted to our capable Harbor Department. I have only been keeping an eye on this project from afar because the engineering work was completed under one of my contracts.

With that said, providing public comments and participating during the various meetings is always a good way to let your thoughts be heard.

Thank you,
Chris
-----Original Message -----
From: Mike Fleming
Sent: December 20, 2022 10:13 AM
To: Miller, Chris
Subject: Posted notice of public hearing
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Chris: I wanted to make a plea to the city to reprioritize the current boondoggle plan to place all the moored boats in double rows within 20" of each other separated by much wider fairways, to apparently increase the number of revenue generating city owned mooring and encourage an increase in traffic of the unliscenced unqualified primarily less sober less skillfully helmed rental Duffys through our children at play neighborhoods. The inevitable increase of property damage and bodily harm will no doubt cost the the city much more than the shore side viewing pleasure will be worth. I think this hearing to discuss the reconfiguring of the the woofully inadequate public dock space for the current number of mooring permittees is a better solution to a problem that actually exists. Why the current harbor management is not working with permittees that are currently not utilizing their mooring is a mystery to me. Adding dry storage on the dry sand areas adjacent to every street dead ended into the sea walls on the harbor side seems like a missed opportunity. Also at 15th street the addition of a sea wall on the east side attached to and inline with the first house like the one at 19th st would make the shallowest side of the dock actually it usable at high or low tide. This would probably work in many of the current public docks. I really appreciate the work you have been doing these past years. Thank you for having read this far.

Merry Christmas
Mike Fleming
15-320

USCG Master 100 tons
3419 Via Lido #295
Newport Beach,Ca. 92663
714-323-9447
15-321

From: John Fradkin
Sent: January 16, 2023 4:12 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Comments and video regarding Tidal Currents in Newport Harbor vs Americas Cup Harbor as it relates to Mooring Field Design Attachments: red arrows tidal current americas cup.png
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commissioners,
With regards to the suitability of the proposed double row mooring field layout patterned after the one in Americas Cup Harbor, there has been much discussion regarding how different the conditions are between the two locations. Thanks to the ingenuity of George Hylkema, the Newport Mooring Association has performed an objective test using a Chip Log to show and quantify the differences in tidal currents between the two locations. Here is a link to a YouTube video of the experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEiCOz5VFmo&t=2s
Please watch it. It's quite impactful and it's only 4 minutes and 43 seconds long. The NMA used some footage from this video at the January 11th Harbor Commission meeting, but lighting and sound were not optimized in Council Chambers when the video was played, and the NMA was also forced to break the video into two segments because of the three minute limitation per speaker rule, so it was perhaps less impactful than it should have been. Also Commissioners Yahn and Cunningham were not in attendance that evening and I believe that it is important that all the Harbor Commissioners see this video.

The experiment using the Chip Log produced the expected results. There is a strong tidal current present in Newport Harbor and no tidal current whatsoever in Americas Cup Harbor. Newport Harbor is in fact like a river four times a day. The presence of this strong tidal current in Newport Harbor makes the act of a vessel either hooking up to its mooring, or leaving its mooring, challenging when the current is strong.

We took 15 measurements in Newport Harbor. The average time for the chip log to move 40 feet was in fact 26 seconds. That means it would take 13 seconds to move 20 feet. 20 feet is the amount of space allocated in Commissioner Beer's double row mooring field proposal between paired boats.

I have attached a visual aide to this email showing the easiest example to understand. In the example shown here, if you are the vessel leaving it's mooring (big red arrow), in these common conditions, after you disconnect from your mooring you will have 13 seconds before the tidal current pushes you into contact with the vessel located directly behind you. This 13 second time is from the effect of the current only. If there are headwinds aligned with the current, which are likely because westerly winds are normal in Newport Harbor, it will make it this situation even worse and the time to impact could be less than 13 seconds.
15-322

Contact occurs in 13 seconds. That means that you really only have 9 or 10 seconds to safely put the boat in gear and start moving forward. Your propeller will be in the vicinity of your own mooring gear in just a few seconds. Is that enough time ? Is that safer than the current mooring field configuration ? Is that enough time to make sure your vessel is clear of your own spreader line ? Picture a singlehander with a high windage powerboat and with engine controls on the flybridge only.

Commissioner Beer proposes to "test" the double row mooring field layout in the C Field at a cost of about $400,000. 1 now feel that expensive test is unnecessary and a waste of $400,000. We now know the results of that test. It's physics. The results will be the same --13 seconds to contact. There is very little else that the test will prove.

Let's save the City $400,000 and not do the test. The double row mooring field layout does not belong in Newport Harbor. It was an interesting idea, but let's move on and only consider tried and true single row mooring field layouts if we are going to make any changes at all.

In summary, the tidal current is strong in Newport Harbor and non-existent in Americas Cup Harbor. Installing the double row mooring field layout in Newport Harbor would be irresponsible from a safety standpoint.

Respectfully,
John Fradkin
Mooring Permittee
NMA Boardmember
15-323

15-324

From: Wade Womack
Sent: February 07, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback
Subject: Follow up from January Harbor Commission meeting Attachments: special anchorage Coast Guard exclusion determination.pdf; Coast Guard Coordinates for mooring fields.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Chair Scully and Harbor Commissioners,
At the January Harbor Commission meeting I commented on the 2012 collaborative effort between that involved the NMA, the City and the Coast Guard in regards to updating the existing mooring boundaries. I referenced a few Coast Guard documents that support the comments and indicated I would provide the documents to the commission.

As promised, please find the two attachments. I highlighted some pertinent areas that support my comments that the existing designated special anchorages do not interfere with general navigation. In my opinion, the goal of widening internal fairways of the mooring fields by pushing mooring rows together is problematic because it will make using the moorings more difficult and will invite unnecessary boat traffic into the mooring fields which runs counter to the intent of these designated special anchorages.

I hope we can all collaborate to find incremental and voluntary methods to enhance the mooring fields.

Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Wade Womack
15-325

.2D/0-o9g9
Enclosure (3) to COMDTINST M16475.1 D

USCG CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION
Modify 33 CFR § 110.95, Expand Anchorages in City of Newport Beach, California The Coast Guard proposes to enlarge thirteen special anchorage areas (or mooring fields) in the Newport Beach Ilarbor, City of Newport Beach, California, to accommodate additional vessels. The action will be accomplished by modifying 33 CFR § 110.95, Newport Beach Harbor, California, as described in detail in the attached Environmental Checklist.

The increased mooring areas are nominally larger than the originally charted mooring areas. Figure shawl the current anchorage and its 13 mooring areas. The anchorage boundaries were first chartered by the Coast Guard in 1967 and modified in 1986 (CGFR 6746, 32 FR 17728, Dec. 12, 1967, as amended by CGD 11802, 51 FR 2882, Jan 22, 1986), but they apparently date much earlier as the lines were originally established by the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Newport Beach through a letter of agreement in 194 1. Over the years, the anchorage mooring fields were gradually over populated with moored boats. As moorings were added or overhauled, the new moorings were often located outside the charted areas of the original anchorages. Over time, harbor users have been accustomed to this ad hoc configuration, which has existed for up to 25 years. The Coast Guard desires to realign the boundaries in order to reflect the way the harbor currently is used. The enlargement of the anchorages would not pose any waterway or navigational hazard, or restrict harbor use in any way.

This NF,PA documentation is not after the fact of the Coast Guard making a decision to expand the Newport Bay anchorages, but it is after the fact of the impact of the small boats that have been mooring For many years in the water surface areas around the edges of the authorized anchorage. The Coast Guard's responsibility for assessing the environmental impacts of changing anchorage boundaries is limited to the impacts caused by regulating access over or under navigable waters within the anchorage, and limited to the operation of USCG vessels or aircraft to enforce the anchorage.

This action is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed action has been thoroughly reviewed by the USCG in the attached Environmental Checklist, and the undersigned have determined this action to be categorically excluded under current USCG CE 4 34 (g) from further environmental documentation, in accordance with Section 2.13.2 and Figure 2-1 of the National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts, COMDTiNST M 16475.1 D, since implementation of this action will not result in any:

I . Significant cumulative impacts on the human environment;

2. Substantial controversy or substantial change to existing environmental conditions;

3. Impacts which are more than minimal on properties protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or,

4. Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local laws or administrative determinations relating to the environment.
54X. DAVI D. Digitally signed by SOX.DAVID.G.1271727271 DN:c-US, o=U.S. Government, ou-DoD, ou=PKI,
ou=USCG, cn=S6X.DAVID.G.1271727271
G • 2'7 "� i 7'i Reason: I am the author of this document // I L / L Date: 2011.10.03 10.45:10 -07'00'
Date DAVID G. SOX Environmental Planning Program Manager Environmental Preparer USCG Dep Cdr of Mission Support (DCMS), Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center (SILC),
Environmental Management Division (EMD)
15-326

Date
LE.

YVAN.127152497
4 YVAN LE
Dig !tally signed by LE.YVAN.1271524974
DN: c—US, o=U.S. Governmen t, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=—USCG, cn=LE.

YVAN.1271524974
Reason: I have reviewed this document
❑ate: 20 T 1.10.03 12:49:20 -07'00'
**Environmental Reviewer
Environmental Engineer
DCMS SILO Product Line Division, Program
Management Branch
15-327

*The USCG preparer signs for NEPA documents prepared in-house. The USCG environmental project manager signs NEPA documents prepared by an applicant, a contractor, or another outside party. *Signature of the Environmental Reviewer for the Bridge Administration Program may be that of the preparer's.

DATE
FAZ I O. F RA N C ES A N N. B.1111tally 646127755d by FAZIO.FRANCESANN.

ON: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DOD, ou=PKI,
B .1 164612755 Hate 2011. 0.03 5° 7 27-D7 ooNN.g.11646, 2755 LCDR F. FAZIO
Responsible Official
Chief, Waterways,
USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach
By direction
15-328

moron wnGP77,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations 22489 penalties for failure to timely provide
certain notices or other material
information. Under the rule, such
assessments will be subject to
reconsideration in accordance with the
provisions of the regulation.

DATES: Effective May 16, 2012 and
applicable to determinations made on or
after that date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine B. Klion (klion.catherine@
pbec.gov), Manager, or Deborah C.

Murphy ([email protected]),
Attorney, Regulatory and Policy
Division, Legislative and Regulatory
Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-
4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the
Federal relay service toll free at 1-800-
877-8339 and ask to be connected to
202-326-4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC) administers the pension plan
termination insurance program under
title IV of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

PBGC's regulation on Rules for
Administrative Review of Agency
Decisions (29 CFR Part 4003) provides
rules governing the issuance of initial
determinations by PBGC involving the
matters set forth in the regulation and
procedures for requesting and obtaining
PBGC review of those determinations,
either by appeal (a more formal
proceeding) or by request for
reconsideration (a less formal process),
depending on the type of matter. A
person that fails to exhaust
administrative remedies under the
regulation with respect to a
determination may not be able to raise
in court some legal defenses against
enforcement of the determination that
might otherwise have been available.

Section 4071 of ERISA authorizes
PBGC to assess a penalty for failure to
timely provide any notice or other
material information required under
ERISA sections 4001-4071 or 303(k)(4)
or regulations thereunder. PBGC
published policy guidance on its
assessment and review of section 4071
penalties on March 3, 1992 (at 57 FR
7605), and July 18, 1995 (at 60 FR
36837).1 On January 12, 2001 (at 66 FR
2857), PBGC published a proposed rule
on Assessment of and Relief from
Penalties under both ERISA section
4007 (dealing with payment of
premiums) and ERISA section 4071.2
1 The 1995 policy statement generally replaced
the 1992 statement.
2 Although it was published as a proposal with an
invitation for public comment, the 2001 penalty
policy proposed rule was (as its preamble stated)
Among the proposed actions was
amendment of the administrative review
regulation to make determinations with
respect to penalties under section 4071
subject to that regulation, in the class of
matters reviewable by reconsideration.3
No comments were received on the
proposal.4
This final rule amends the
administrative review regulation
consistent with the 2001 proposal. This
change will promote uniformity in
PBGC's procedures for making and
reviewing determinations. The
provisions of the administrative review
regulation will supersede any
inconsistent provisions of the 1992 and
1995 penalty policy statements; in other
respects, those policy statements will be
unaffected.

Applicability
The amendment made by this rule
applies to determinations under section
4071 made on or after May 16, 2012.

Compliance With Rulemaking
Guidelines
PBGC has determined that this action
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the criteria set forth in Executive
Order 12866.

This rule is not subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act because it deals only
with PBGC procedural rules. Because no
general notice of proposed rulemaking
is required, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2),
603, 604.

This action is associated with
retrospective review and analysis in
PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review 5
issued in accordance with Executive
Order 13563 on "Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review."
not subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act because it dealt only
with general statements of PBGC policy and with
PBGC procedural rules. On November 17, 2006 (at
71 FR 66867), PBGC published a final rule adding
a penalty policy appendix, drawn from the 2001
proposed rule, to its regulation on Payment of
Premiums.
3 Premium penalties under ERISA section 4007
are already covered by the administrative review
regulation. Premium penalty determinations are in
the class of matters for which reconsideration is
provided.
4On May 7, 2004 (at 69 FR 25797), PBGC
proposed a new penalty policy for failures to issue
Participant Notices as required under ERISA section
4011 and PBGC's regulation on Disclosure to
Participants (29 CFR part 4011), the provisions of
which are inapplicable to plan years starting after
2006. Comments received on that proposal were
relevant to some aspects of the 2001 proposal, but
not to the administrative review provisions.
5 See www.pbec.gov/documents/plan for-
regul atory-review. pd f.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4003
Administrative practice and
procedure, Organization and functions
(Government agencies), Pension
insurance, Pensions.

For the reasons given above, PBGC is
amending 29 CFR part 4003 as follows.

PART 4003—RULES FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF

AGENCY DECISIONS
■ 1. The authority citation for part 4003
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3).
■ 2. In § 4003.1, paragraph (a) is
amended by removing the words "(b)(1)
through (b)(4)" and adding in their
place the words "(b)(1) through (b)(5)"
and by removing the words "(b)(5)
through (b)(10)" and adding in their
place the words "(b)(6) through (b)(11)";
paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(10) are
redesignated as paragraphs (b)(6)
through (b)(11); and a new paragraph
(b)(5) is added to read as follows:
§4003.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(b) Scope. * * *
(5) Determinations with respect to
penalties under section 4071 of ERISA;
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, this 6th day of
April 2012.

Joshua Gotbaum,
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2012-9095 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7709-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG-2010-0929]
RIN 1625—AA01
Special Anchorage Regulations,
Newport Bay Harbor, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is expanding
the boundaries of the special anchorage
areas in Newport Bay Harbor, California,
to encompass and replace temporary
anchorage grounds C-1 and C-2, and
anchorage ground C-3. This rule
realigns anchorage boundaries to reflect
the way the harbor currently is used.

DATES: This rule is effective May 16,
2012.
15-329

22490 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations ADDRESSES: Comments and material
received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, are part
of docket USCG-2010-0929 and are
available online by going to http://
www.regulations.gov , inserting USCG
2010-0929 in the "Keyword" box, and
then clicking "Search." This material is
also available for inspection or copying
at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Lieutenant Lucas Mancini, Coast
Guard District Eleven, telephone 510-
437-3801, email
[email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.

Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information
On December 16, 2011 we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled "Anchorage
Regulations: Subpart A —Special
Anchorage Regulations, Newport Bay
Harbor, CA" in the Federal Register (76
FR 78185). We received no comments
on the proposed rule. No request for
public meeting was made.

Basis and Purpose
The legal basis for this rule is: 33
U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030,
2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to define anchorage grounds.

This rule expands the designated
special anchorage areas in Newport Bay
Harbor, and removes other anchorage
grounds, to align with the actual
placement of existing mooring areas and
reflect the way the harbor is currently
used.

Background
Due to enhanced anchorage
population over the years, the mooring
areas being used in Newport Bay Harbor
are nominally larger than the special
anchorage areas originally charted in 33
CFR 110.95. As moorings were added or
overhauled, the new moorings would
fall outside the existing boundaries,
resulting in moorings lying outside the
charted areas. Similarly, the anchorage
grounds designated in 33 CFR 110.212
were originally used as temporary
overflow anchorages, but are now used
regularly. Harbor users have been
accustomed to this placement for the
last 10 years.

The Mooring Master Plan
Subcommittee of the City of Newport
Harbor Commission led an outreach
campaign involving a series of public
meetings about aligning the anchorage
regulations with actual harbor use
patterns, and we understand that it did
not receive any opposition from the
waterway users. After these public
meetings, the City of Newport asked the
Coast Guard to amend its anchorage
regulations. The Coast Guard therefore
solicited public comment on proposed
changes in the NPRM mentioned above.

We received no comment on the
proposal.

Discussion of Changes
The Coast Guard is finalizing the
proposal without changes and
realigning the anchorage boundaries in
order to reflect the way the harbor
currently is used. This rule removes
§ 110.212 and the three anchorage
grounds found therein (anchorages C-1,
C-2, C-3). The area covered by those
anchorages is incorporated into the
special anchorage area regulations at
§ 110.95. Anchorage C-1 is incorporated
into area B-1 under revised § 110.95(m),
and anchorages C-2 and C-3 is
incorporated into area A-11 under
revised § 110.95(k). An image of the
anchorage areas is available in the
docket.

The enlargement of the special
anchorage areas does not pose any
waterway or navigational hazard, or
restrict harbor use in any way. The
Army Corps of Engineers has been
consulted and did not have any
opposition. We anticipate that this rule
would have no impact on fishing or
boating because the amendment adjusts
the lines to fit the current layout of
moorings in Newport Harbor. Small
craft are not restricted in the harbor.

Berthing and anchoring in Newport
Harbor also is regulated by Orange
County ordinance and the City of
Newport's municipal code. The
enlargement of the special anchorages
does not impact these laws; for the
convenience of the reader we have
included references pertaining to local
municipal codes in the rule.

Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking.

Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, as supplemented
by Executive Order 13563, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that
Order. The Coast Guard is realigning
anchorage boundaries in order to reflect
the way the harbor currently is used.

The enlargement of the anchorages does
not restrict harbor use in any way.

Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered
whether this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The term
"small entities" comprises small
businesses, not -for -profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
(1) This rule may affect the following
entities, some of which might be small
entities: The owners or operators of
commercial and recreational vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the
affected area.
(2) The impact to these entities will
not, however, be significant since this
area will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway and vessels can
safely navigate around the anchored
vessels.

Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),
in the NPRM we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so
that they could better evaluate its effects
on them and participate in the
rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call
1-888—REG—FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
15-330

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 22491 The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
would not result in such expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property
This rule does not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk
to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it will not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a "significant
energy action" under that order because
it is not a "significant regulatory action"
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. An "Environmental
Analysis Check List" and a categorical
exclusion determination supporting this
determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. This rule involves changing
the size of special anchorage areas.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110
Anchorage grounds.

For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110-ANCHORAGE

REGULATIONS
■ 1. The authority citation for part 110
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through
1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g);
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
■ 2. Revise § 110.95 to read as follows:
§ 110.95 Newport Bay Harbor, Calif.
(a) Area A-1. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33°36'09.3"
N., longitude 117053'52.6" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'11.4" N., longitude
117°53'51.2" W.; thence to latitude
33036'04.0" N., longitude 117053'33.4"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'03.9" N.,
longitude 117'53'20.4" W.; thence to
33036'01.1" N., longitude 117053'09.9"
W.; thence to 33036'01.1" N., longitude
117°53'32.7" W.; thence to 33°36'03.9
N., longitude 117053'41.9" W.; returning
to latitude 33036'09.3" N., longitude
117'53'52.6" W.
(b) Area A-2. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'12.9"
N., longitude 117053'44.2" W; thence to
latitude 33036'14.2" N., longitude
117053'44.3" W.; thence to latitude
33036'14.2" N., longitude 117053'20.6"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'10.8" N.,
longitude 117053'20.5" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'12.7" N., longitude
117053'29.9" W.; thence to latitude
33036'12.7" N., longitude 117053'35.4"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'12.9" N.,
longitude 117°53'37.0" W.; returning to
latitude 33036'12.9" N., longitude
117053'44.2" W.
(c) Area A-3. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'22.7"
N., longitude 117 54'12.6" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'24.9" N., longitude
117054'12.6" W.; thence to latitude
33036'26.2" N., longitude 117°54'11.3"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'18.7" N.,
longitude 117054'00.5" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'16.2" N., longitude
117054'02.9" W.; returning to latitude
33036'22.7" N., longitude 117054'12.6"
W.
(d) Area A-4. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036' 32.7"
N., longitude 117053'56.6" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'33.6" N., longitude
117053'56.6" W.; thence to latitude
33036'33.5" N., longitude 117053'26.2"
W.; thence to latitude 33°36'32.9" N.,
15-331

22492 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 73 / Monday, April 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations longitude 117053'26.2" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'32.6" N., longitude
117053'33.8" W.; thence to latitude
33°36'32.4" N., longitude 117053'36.7"
W.; thence to latitude 33°36'31.7" N.,
longitude 117053'40.9" W.; thence to
33°36'31.7" N., longitude 117053'46.3"
W.; thence to latitude 33°36'32.6" N.,
longitude 117053'50.9" W.; returning to
latitude 33036' 32.7" N., longitude
117'53'56.6" W.
(e) Area A-5. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'29.1"
N., longitude 117054'55.3" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'27.8" N., longitude
117°54'55.8" W.; thence to latitude
33036'24.1" N., longitude 117054'41.8"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'26.7" N.,
longitude 117054'40.8" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'26.7" N., longitude
117°54'46.3" W.; returning to latitude
33036'29.1" N., longitude 117054'55.3"
W.
(f) Area A-6. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'43.3"
N., longitude 117054'26.4" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'51.7" N., longitude
117054'22.8" W.; thence to latitude
33036'51.4" N., longitude 117054'21.5"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'42.9" N"
longitude 117054'25.2" W.; returning to
latitude 33036'43.3" N., longitude
117054'26.4" W.
(g) Area A-7. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'32.1"
N., longitude 117055'12.5" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'37.7" N., longitude
117055'11.0" W.; thence to latitude
33036'35.1" N., longitude 117055'01.3"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'30.4" N.,
longitude 117055'02.6" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'31.2" N., longitude
117055'06.7" W.; returning to latitude
33036'32.1" N., longitude 117055'12.5"
W.
(h) Area A-8. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'34.2"
N., longitude 117°55'27.3" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'36.2" N., longitude
117055'26.7" W.; thence to latitude
33°36'39.5" N., longitude 117055'20.9"
W.; thence to latitude 33036'38.9" N.,
longitude 117055'15.4" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'37.9" N., longitude
117055'11.7" W.; thence to latitude
33036'32.1" N., longitude 117055'13.3"
W.; returning to latitude 33°36'34.2" N.,
longitude 117055'27.3" W.
(i) Area A-9. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'53.5"
N., longitude 117055'28.2" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'54.0" N., longitude
117055'27.0" W.; thence to latitude
33036'43.4" N., longitude 117055'20.4"
W.; thence to latitude 33°36'42.9" N.,
longitude 117055'21.6" W.; returning to
latitude 33036'53.5" N., longitude
117°55'28.2" W.
(j) Area A-10. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'07.4"
N., longitude 117053'19.2" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'14.2" N., longitude
117053'19.4" W.; thence to latitude
33036'14.2" N., longitude 117053'06.9"
W.-, thence to latitude 33°36'08.1" N.,
longitude 117053'04.9" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'06.5" N., longitude
117053'08.9" W.; thence to latitude
33036'06.5" N., longitude 117053'16.3"
W.; returning to latitude 33036'07.4" N.,
longitude 117053'19.2" W.
(k) Area A-11. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'04.7"
N., longitude 117053'01.9" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'06.1" N., longitude
117053'00.5" W.; thence to latitude
33°36'06.2" N., longitude 117'52'59.0"
W.; thence to latitude 33035'59.4" N.,
longitude 117052'51.1" W.; thence to
latitude 33°35'57.5" N., longitude
117052'50.9" W.; thence to latitude
33036'01.9" N., longitude 117052'57.3"
W.; thence to latitude 33°36'03.0" N.,
longitude 117053'00.4" W.; returning to
latitude 33036'04.7" N., longitude
117°53'01.9" W.
(1) Area A-12. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'27.9"
N., longitude 117054'40.4" W.; thence to
latitude 33°36'23.9" N., longitude
117054'41.8" W.; thence to latitude
33036'20.8" N., longitude 117054'29.91
W.; thence to latitude 33036'28.5" N.,
longitude 117054'20.2" W.; returning to
latitude 33036'27.9" N., longitude
117054'40.4" W.
(m) Area B-1. The entire water area
within beginning at latitude 33036'35.1"
N., longitude 117054'28.8" W.; thence to
latitude 33036'32.1" N., longitude
117054'22.1" W.; thence to latitude
33°36'30.6" N., longitude 117°54'22.8"
W; thence to latitude 33036'30.5" N.,
longitude 117054'30.9" W.; returning to
latitude 33°36'35.1" N., longitude
117054'28.8" W.

Note to § 110.95: These anchorage
areas are reserved for recreational and
other small craft. Local law, including
the City of Newport Beach Municipal
Code 17.25.020, may provide for fore
and aft moorings for recreational and
small craft of such size and alignment
as permitted by the harbor master.
■ 3. Remove § 110.212.

Dated: April 1, 2012.

J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, District
Eleven Commander.
[FR Doc. 2012-9006 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG-2012-0144]
RIN 1625-AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Long Island, New York Inland
Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to
Shinnecock Canal, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for
comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is
temporarily changing the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the
operation of the Atlantic Beach Bridge,
mile 0.4, across Reynolds Channel at
Lawrence, New York. The owner of the
bridge has requested a temporary
change to the regulations to facilitate
major rehabilitation at the bridge. It is
expected that this temporary change to
the regulations will help facilitate the
bridge rehabilitation. This interim rule
is intended to better meet the present
needs of navigation by allowing the
bridge rehabilitation repairs to continue
on schedule while providing the public
the opportunity to submit comments.

DATES: This interim rule is effective
from April 23, 2012 through May 15,
2013. Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
May 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG
2012-0144 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov .
(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202-366-9329.

To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
"Public Participation and Request for
Comments" portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this interim rule,
15-332

From: Admin
Sent: February 15, 2023 10:10 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Cc: NMA Email Board
Subject: NMA Follow Up to the Harbor Commission
Attachments: NMA's Examples and Benefits of Medium to Long Term Mooring Rentals-- sk-v2.docx; NMAs Proposals being Studied .docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Newport Beach Harbor Commission,
Recently the Harbor Commission asked the Newport Mooring Association to offer recommendations to help improve the mooring fields and address certain concerns raised by some members of the Commission regarding navigation inside some mooring fields and related matters.

In separate studies the NMA has documented that no real concerns existed and that the proposed ideas of moving massive amounts of moorings and boats was not a good idea and created major safety problems. Nonetheless, at the request of some members of the Commission, the NMA engaged in a study of ways to address some of these concerns, regardless of whether the concerns were well founded. The ideas under study by the NMA were presented at a workshop on January 30t' for the benefit of the mooring permittees. At the meeting some fresh ideas were also suggested for future study.

Chairman Scully requested that the NMA provide the entire Harbor Commission with a summary of what the NMA presented at the meeting,
The following is a summary of what was presented by the NMA's subcommittee on Mooring Field Safety and Access.

At the workshop the questions that had been raised by some members of the commission were first outlined to put in perspective what the NMA was studying. Again, by presenting ways to address these questions, the NMA is not in any way suggesting there are any significant problems with the current configuration that need to be addressed.

The topics addressed were:
- a few fairways with obstacles or that have shifted over time - the desire for more "Open Water"
- additional public use of moorings
15-333

- large boat placement
mooring extension requests
The NMA then presented an outline of ideas it had been studying to address these topics. The presentation was based on the following handout made available to everyone at the meeting. The text of the handout follows (and is also attached):

Summary of Ideas being Studied to Address Questions Raised by the Harbor Commission
The following ideas are being reviewed and studied by the NMA's Subcommittee on Mooring Field Safety and Access.

1. Addressing a Few Narrow Fairways and Obstructions
The NMA believes that there are very few situations that have created any difficulties in getting on and off moorings, and there have been no reported incidents of any significance, so it is inappropriate to state there are safety issues. For the minor issues that arise from time to time, there are simple adjustments that can be made. The following are historical tried and true methods:
a. Require spreader lines when vessels are off moorings under certain conditions. For example, if a vessel is off the mooring for a long term, if without a spreader line, the buoy extends too far into a fairway on a regular basis. The details and methods should be discussed and studied as there are many different methods for using spreader lines, pick up lines, and related methods of keeping stray buoys from going too far into a fairway. In cases where the buoys were set up for a larger boat, but where there is no boat or a smaller boat, the buoys and weights can be moved closer together.
b. Easy Fix. If a permittee refuses to keep his or her buoy out of the fairway following notice, the City can attach a spreader line and bill the mooring holder for the cost. 15-334

c. Make minor adjustments to widen a very narrow fairway. Using the B field as an example, the average mooring size is approximately 42 feet. In the B field, there are approximately two fairways that are half that width. A few minor adjustments can resolve the issue for one or two rows.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code

2. Addressing the Desire for More "Open Water"
Open water for shoreline views or for areas of recreation. The NMA does not believe that any need for open water should focus on the mooring fields, in part, because increasing open water inside mooring fields will generally result in crowding boats together resulting in major safety issues. Also, increasing fairways for general navigation runs counter to mooring fields being dedicated anchorages which are not open to general navigation. Nonetheless, here are some ideas of ways to increase open water without resulting in safety concerns or violating the mooring fields as quiet anchorages.
a. Provide Incentives for Smaller Vessels. Over time, the current system encourages larger vessels to be assigned to moorings. This decreases open water areas. Currently, there are no incentives for reducing the size of a vessel on a mooring or size of a mooring (except for a reduction in the yearly fee, which many people are not aware of, or people are fearful that they would not be able to increase the size back at a later time).

Here are some ideas that over time would help contribute to some voluntary reduction in mooring or boat size.

1. Voluntary Reduction in Mooring Size. Educate permit holders that they can save money on their yearly fees by reducing the size of their moorings. For those people concerned that 15-335

"some day" they may want a bigger boat, the City should offer the mooring holder the option to increase the size of the mooring back to the pre -reduction size, by changing a small reinstatement fee.

2. Charge by Boat Size, not Mooring Size. Yearly fees could be charged by the size of a vessel on a mooring, not by the size of the mooring. This is worth studying and this system has been used in the past.
b. Voluntary Non -Use. Mooring holders may agree not to place a vessel on the mooring for a period of time, for example, 4 months, 9 months or longer, and thereby open up space on the water (or alternatively allow long term rental by the City as discussed later, or a combination of both). In exchange, if the mooring holder agrees to not place a vessel on the mooring for four months to a year, would pay only half the yearly fee, and if the permittee agreed to not put a vessel on the mooring for a year or more, he or she would pay no yearly fee, but would still need to maintain the buoy, weights and chain.

Cost to the City: Zero
Any reduction of average fees from increase in open water can be recaptured by revenue from the long-term rental of some of the moorings which are not being used.

No Need for Change in Harbor Code

3. Addressing Additional Public Use of Moorings.

It should first be noted that in the NMA's view, this no more a problem than the fact that there are only so many slips, so many homes, so many parking spaces in the City. Moorings like any other property are limited. While the NMA believes that affordable boating does need to be kept affordable, adding additional moorings would be a mistake, since this would only further crowd a very crowded harbor and increase boat traffic. However, there is a way of increasing the 15-336

availability of moorings without increasing the impact on the dinghy docks, and all at no cost to the City. Here's an approach:
a. Creating Long -Term Rental Moorings.

As noted above, ask permit holders if they would voluntarily agree to take their moorings out of use for 9 months or more. In exchange, they would be relieved of having to pay some or all of the annual fee based on the amount of time they agreed to leave the mooring empty. For example, between four months and one year would result in a 50% savings, a year or more a 100% savings, (but they would still need to maintain the weights, buoys and chain). The City can then rent the mooring and will receive revenue at a reasonable rate. The revenue will more than offset any potential loss from the mooring holders who have agreed to this program.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
b. No impact on Dinghy Docks by Conditioning Rentals on Having Access.

Adding new moorings has a major impact on the public dinghy docks, which in turn has an adverse effect on current mooring permit holders. To offset this problem the City could require that a person renting a long-term mooring would need to make arrangements for a way to access the long-term rental, such as dock space at a marina, or rental of a dinghy rack, or dock space at a private home, or an organization that has a shuttle service like the two yacht clubs currently have.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code

4. Addressing Large Boat Placement
15-337

The NMA does not believe that an occasional large boat in a row of smaller boats has been a problem in the past, and there have been no reported accidents, incidents, or complaints that we are aware of, and since getting on and off a mooring are not approached from the fairway closest to a mooring but by navigating parallel to the mooring. Nonetheless, there may be a few situations where a large vessel would be better placed in a row nearby. Here are some ways to address this situation without massive movements of boats and moorings:
a. First Identify an Actual Problem. If a complaint has been received or if the Harbor Master determines that there may be a significant problem, then conduct a survey of the adjacent moorings to ascertain if the larger mooring size in the row of smaller moorings is presenting significant difficulties or safety issues for the adjacent moorings. The survey can also include any homes with docks, or a nearby marina, which might need to use the fairway as the best way to access the home dock, or a marina finger. If there appears to be significant complaint(s) that affect safety or creates difficulties for other boats getting on or off moorings or adjacent slips, only then contact the boat owner to discuss the situation. b. Voluntary Request to Move. Ask the owner of the mooring permit holder if they would be willing to move the mooring a few rows over or ask if they would agree to reduce the size of the mooring which would result in a lower yearly mooring fee. c. Rental Priority or Move. If the owner would agree to decrease the size of the mooring but needs a place for the larger vessel at least for a period of time, give the person a priority on the rental of one of the larger moorings that might become available via the new long-term rental program.
d. Only for Major Size Issues. In relation to the above, no vessel which is less than 150% larger than the average size of the other moorings in the same row, shall be subject to requests for voluntary relocation.

Cost to the City: Zero
15-338

No Need for Change in Harbor Code

5. Addressing Extension Requests.

Historically the NMA has not taken a position on any particular mooring extension request or reduction request. In the past these matters were generally left to the discretion of the Harbor Master under conditions set by the City. The existing code provides for the process but has not been used for three years. The procedures should be reinstated. In addition, to further the need for some mooring holders to obtain a larger mooring (or smaller mooring) for their boating needs, the following would assist, to some degree:
a. Allow minor adjustments. Almost all marinas allow boats to be slightly larger than the size of the slip. A 3-foot allowance would resolve many cases for the need for an extension. The slight increase in size would be offset by the reductions in size utilizing the ideas previously discussed. The City could also charge for the additional length, and require that no part of the vessel extend into the fairway.
b. Priority to Mooring Holders Needing a Larger Mooring.

Currently one of the problems with a person acquiring a mooring is that there is no advanced notice of the availability of a mooring for sale. Some moorings are advertised, some not. If advertised, it may be on a number of different media, such as Craigslist, The Log, or Facebook. Persons interested in acquiring a mooring (or a larger or smaller mooring) are not necessarily looking at all of these media sources every day.

1. Place the Listing of a Mooring for Sale on a Single Website.

to see the information. That would allow a person needing a larger mooring to acquire a larger mooring that comes up for sale. The website can be maintained by either the City or the NMA.

2. Priority to Persons Needing a Larger Mooring. Being on the email list and receiving early information about mooring for sale will allow a person needing a larger mooring to acquire the larger mooring much sooner than otherwise. If two persons are offering the same amount for the mooring, priority would be given to the person who was on the wait list for a larger mooring. Again, this process is in addition to the process in the existing code and is not meant to replace it.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
End of Text of Handout
The ideas presented were very well received by the mooring permit holders. This was a working meeting where people were free to express fresh ideas off the top of their head, some of which the NMA will be studying in the future. To keep the meeting focused on these topics, the NMA reminded everyone that the NMA's review, study, and concerns over the double row system, had been presented, and will continue to be presented at other meetings. This meeting was only to look at possible ways to improve mooring fields in a safe manner that takes into account questions that have been raised regardless of the validity or lack of validity of these questions. The NMA also noted that prior to this meeting, the NMA conducted a simple poll to its membership on whether the current Harbor Commission plan to reconfigure the mooring fields into a double row layout was favored or not. During the meeting the NMA released the results of that poll which were 148 to 6 against the new proposed configuration. At the meeting, those present were asked if anyone liked the double row idea better than NMA's ideas under study. No one wanted the double row system.

In addition to the well -received ideas under study and presented by the NMA, a some new fresh ideas where thrown out for the first time, most of which came from mooring permittees and have not been studied or endorsed by the NMA, but may be considered by the NMA in what is hoped to be a future presentation to the Commission. These not -yet -studied ideas included:
15-340

a. Instead of requiring spreader lines in every mooring field when a boat is off its mooring for a long period of time, only using spreader lines in the fields or areas where buoys are presenting problems. Therefore, first conduct a study of which fields and which fairways are in need of this requirement.
b. Appoint mooring field "Port Captains" in each mooring field to keep an eye on things, such as stray buoys and recommend changes when necessary. It will be each Mooring Field Port Captain's responsibility to contact those mooring permittees in his or her field to get them to make any perceived changes before the Harbormaster is asked to follow up. The appointments can be done by the NMA with no need for City administration of these voluntary appointments. c. Make minor adjustments to mooring weight placement where appropriate to get moorings aligned properly. Require actual site plan coordinates for mooring placement and encourage higher tech tools (i.e. Hypack software) to be used for mooring weight placement by all mooring field contractors. Adjust the placement of weights on each inspection, so the cost is minimal to the permittee, with no cost to the City.
d. Under the topic of large boat placement and voluntary reassignment, one person said he had personally conducted his own study and noted that there were less than 5 boats that fell into that category ("I can count them on one hand"), so the issue could be easily managed and should not be exaggerated.
e. A totally new idea, which has not been considered or studied by the NMA, was thrown out by one person (who was not speaking as part of the NMA), as follows: - Study how much area a single point mooring would need and see if there are some areas in current double row mooring fields were single point moorings could replace double point moorings. In particular, the A field and the B field might be looked at with this idea in mind. The idea was presented in part with the thought that a single point mooring area might be preferred by some residents who would see different views of boats as boats shift with the wind and tide. Again, this is not an idea that has been looked at by the NMA, and was put out by the person for possible future study in the "brainstorming" part of the meeting.

Attached is also an outline of more detail under study regarding the medium term and/or long- term rental program, which was discussed at the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Newport Mooring Association
15-341

NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION - STUDY SESSION

EXHIBIT

TO SUMMARY OF MOORING FIELD IMPROVEMENTS UNDER STUDY
Examples and Benefits of Longer -Term Mooring Rentals in Newport Beach In addition to the short-term mooring rental program currently used by the City, the following are examples of how longer term mooring rentals could be implemented.

Example 1. Medium Term Rentals
■ There could be much better optimization of the current Subpermittee system to effect medium term rentals of underutilized moorings in the harbor. The Subpermit language is already in Title

17. It's just a rules, rates, and management issue. At any given time there appears to be about 120 moorings not in use in addition to moorings that are vacant for a few days. That is approximately 20% of the current off -shore moorings that are not part of the Yacht Club's mooring fields. A boat may be off of its mooring for an extended time for many reasons. The boat may be on extended cruise south to Mexico, north to the San Juan Islands, the boat may be out for extended repairs, or the boat may have been sold and the permittee is considering a different boat.
■ Current mooring permittees can place their moorings in a "Medium Term Rental Pool" if they choose to do so. By placing their mooring in this pool, it means that they are generally willing to give up their mooring for a period of 6 months, but they retain the ability to retrieve their mooring with 60 days' notice.
■ If their mooring is selected by the Harbor Department to be sublet for a 6-month term, their mooring fees for that period go to zero. If and when they choose to give 60 days' notice to retrieve their mooring from the "Pool", at a time earlier than the 6 month end date, they must pay a $200 fee and they start paying their regular monthly mooring permit fees effective on the date when the notice is filed.
■ A suggested rental rate for the 6-month rental rate is $10.00/foot/month. This would be $450/month for a 45 foot boat. The current short term subpermittee rate is calculated at $1.33/foot/night and results in a monthly rate of approximately $1800/month and is restricted to 15 days maximum although it can be renewed indefinitely. The longer -term rental rate would not conflict with the rates paid by existing mooring permittees since the two types of uses are different. The person renting would have no right of transfer, would need to obtain (and pay for a means of access to the mooring — see below), and, unlike a permit holder would not have a 1 1 P a g e
15-342

major capital expense of the acquisition of a mooring permit, or have to maintain the mooring equipment, except perhaps for the mooring pennant lines tied to his or her boat. ■ This would likely appeal to both some mooring permittees and some potential medium -term renters.
■ It is likely that once this system became known to both permit holders and the public there would be many moorings placed in the pool and that supply of moorings in the pool would exceed demand.
■ If a 60-day notice was given, then the sub-permittee would have to be moved to a different mooring in the Pool, but this should not be a problem since it is not likely to occur that often and there is reason to believe there will be plenty of moorings in the pool. Also, City owned moorings can be used as a buffer.
■ This system would offer only upside in revenue. For every medium term rental done in this way, the revenue from that specific mooring would approximately triple. It would be a win/win for everyone.
■ In order to lessen the impacts on public dinghy docks, the City could require that medium term rental tenants prove that they have a way to access their rented mooring other than the public dinghy docks. The cost for insuring access also justifies a lower rate to be paid, while at the same time providing additional revenue to the City.

Example 2. Medium -Term and Long -Term Rentals
This is the same as Example 1, but might be called "Long Term Rental and Open Space Incentives" Encouraging a permit holder who is not using his or her mooring would serve two purposes, not just one. If not rented it would create more open water, and if rented it would increase use of moorings by persons who are not able to acquire a mooring. Since both purposes would be served, the City can offer incentives regardless of whether or not the mooring is actually rented. The Harbor Commission, in consultation with the Harbormaster, can then decide the best utilization of the moorings now committed to be vacant for a certain period of time, and what areas of the harbor are best served for these different purposes.

There could be different incentives depending on the length of time a permittee commits to the vacancy, and should not be conditioned on the City's rental of the moorings, since the incentive serves both purposes and the permit holder should not be at a disadvantage if the City decides not to rent his or her mooring following the commitment to leave the mooring vacant for a period of time. For example, if the commitment were for a year or more, the permit holder would pay no fee during that time — although the person would still need to maintain the mooring. In the case of a commitment for less than a year, perhaps a sixty percent fee reduction would be appropriate.

Again, with the idea of promoting both purposes, the incentives should be provided regardless of whether or not the City rents the mooring. For example, if half of these moorings were rented and half were left vacant, and if rented for $400 to $450 per month, the City should end up with extra revenue even after deducting the loss from the incentives and the cost to administer the program. This is truly a win/win voluntary approach, with benefits to the permit holder, benefits to the person wanting a mooring for his or her boat, benefits to shoreline views, and added revenue to the City. 2 1 P a g e
15-343

NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION
Summary of Ideas being Studied to Address Questions Raised by the Harbor Commission
The following ideas are being reviewed and studied by the NMA's Subcommittee on Mooring Field Safety and Access.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
1IPage
15-344

Here are some ideas that over time would help contribute to some voluntary reduction in mooring or boat size.

1. Voluntary Reduction in Mooring Size. Educate permit holders that they can save money on their yearly fees by reducing the size of their moorings. For those people concerned that "some day" they may want a bigger boat, the City should offer the mooring holder the option to increase the size of the mooring back to the pre -reduction size, by changing a small reinstatement fee.

Cost to the City: Zero
Any reduction of average fees from increase in open water can be recaptured by revenue from the long-term rental of some of the moorings which are not being used.

No Need for Change in Harbor Code
2 1 P a g e
15-345

3. Addressing Additional Public Use of Moorings.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
b. No impact on Dinghy Docks by Conditioning Rentals on Having Access.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
3 1 P a g e
15-346

4. Addressing Large Boat Placement
The NMA does not believe that an occasional large boat in a row of smaller boats has been a problem in the past, and there have been no reported accidents, incidents, or complaints that we are aware of, and since getting on and off a mooring are not approached from the fairway closest to a mooring but by navigating parallel to the mooring. Nonetheless, there may be a few situations where a large vessel would be better placed in a row nearby. Here are some ways to address this situation without massive movements of boats and moorings:
a. First Identify an Actual Problem. If a complaint has been received or if the Harbor Master determines that there may be a significant problem, then conduct a survey of the adjacent moorings to ascertain if the larger mooring size in the row of smaller moorings is presenting significant difficulties or safety issues for the adjacent moorings. The survey can also include any homes with docks, or a nearby marina, which might need to use the fairway as the best way to access the home dock, or a marina finger. If there appears to be significant complaint(s) that affect safety or creates difficulties for other boats getting on or off moorings or adjacent slips, only then contact the boat owner to discuss the situation. b. Voluntary Request to Move. Ask the owner of the mooring permit holder if they would be willing to move the mooring a few rows over or ask if they would agree to reduce the size of the mooring which would result in a lower yearly mooring fee. c. Rental Priority or Move. If the owner would agree to decrease the size of the mooring but needs a place for the larger vessel at least for a period of time, give the person a priority on the rental of one of the larger moorings that might become available via the new long-term rental program.
d. Only for Major Size Issues. In relation to the above, no vessel which is less than 150% larger than the average size of the other moorings in the same row, shall be subject to requests for voluntary relocation.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
4 1 P a g e
15-347

5. Addressing Extension Requests.

1. Place the Listing of a Mooring for Sale on a Single Website.

The person selling a mooring should be asked to provide notice on a website list that will show the mooring being available for sale and the asking price. This is similar to the way it is done with Avalon moorings. Then anyone looking for a larger mooring can monitor the website to see the information. That would allow a person needing a larger mooring to acquire a larger mooring that comes up for sale. The website can be maintained by either the City or the NMA.

Cost to the City: Zero
No Need for Change in Harbor Code
5 1 P a g e
15-348

Comments about relaying out of the mooring fields.

I do not agree with this statement:
"This new design is expected to greatly improve safety and navigation and provide existing mooring permittees with an improved experience when securing lines to and from their mooring." This new design will not greatly improve safety. It is more likely to cause damage to the boats and possibly injury to the boaters.

How will having more stress of another boat near when approaching the mooring and securing lines improve the mooring permittees experience? This new design will not provide existing mooring permittees with an improved experience when securing lines to and from their mooring The mooring line will be shorter than I currently use. That will make the angle down to the float steeper. Which will make attaching it to the boat cleat more effort. In no wind, no problem. Wind will make this a problem.

I will agree that the mooring fields need to be organized and the rows aligned.

I have a 27' sailboat on a mooring in the H field that you are using for an example. I have been there for 35 years. Before that, my parents had a sailboat on a mooring for 8 years. I have had a lot of experience leaving and picking up a mooring in a sailboat.

Mostly single handed. When there are guests, they are usually left at the dock and a small dingy is used to get to the boat on the mooring and then pick up the guests at the dock. At the end of the day the guests are dropped off at the dock and the boat is taken back to the mooring single handed.

Sail boats typically have a small single two bladed propeller driven by a small motor.

Reverse thrust is not as strong as forward. If there is a commonly used folding prop reverse is almost not existent. Arriving at a mooring the boat must have a small amount of speed through the water in order to maintain maneuverability with just the rudder. Just before the boat arrives at the mooring the motor needs to go into reverse to slow the forward movement. Just as the boat slows to a stop the engine is switched to neutral, the stern mooring line is picked up and attached to the boat to help slow the boat. Typically the boat will take 5 to 10 feet to stop. As soon as the stern line is attached, you need to run forward to get the bow line on the cleat before the wind blows the bow out of line or the stern line pulls the boat back.

When the wind gets higher than 16 Kts or is coming from an abnormal direction the approach to the mooring pickup needs to be a little faster to have more directional control and weigh on so the wind does not stop the boat short. The force on the mooring line can be much more difficult to pick up and hold onto. Pulling my 27' boat into the wind by the bow line is close to all I can do.

If the mooring line gets away from you the boat can swing around 180 degrees held by the stern mooring line. If that happens with another boat 20' behind you, there will be damage to the boats.

Landing at a mooring becomes a lot more fun when the sailboat is using just sails. 15-349

With the shared mooring plan it is listed to be 20' between the boats. I recall seeing the length of the mooring line will be required to be 10'. If I was to use a 10' long mooring line to the float, the boat will be closer than 10 feet because the angle of the mooring line going up to the deck that is 5' above the waterline. This will result to approximately 7' from the boat to the float. The point the line goes through the chock is about 2 feet back from the bow of the boat. That would make the boat approximately 5' from the float. My 27' boat has a typical sized bow pulpit that may extend past the bow by 1 '/2' so now the float is about 4 feet from my boat. And my boat would be about 14 feet from the stern of the next boat if there is no overhang or swim step or dingy hanging at the stern of the next boat.

This appears that if it takes 10' to stop my boat when I arrive, my boat will end up striking the mooring float every time I arrive at the mooring and may strike the other boat.

Using a sand line like the moorings in Catalina will be an absolute mess when the sand line is brought up to the deck. The mud in Newport bay is really dirty. Catalina has very good flushing. The dirty muddy silt is washed out.

Also the closer to the surface the sand line is the more growth there will be on the line.

After a year there will be this 2' big lump of growth and barnacles at the waterline. The lines will be heavy. Another thing is if the Helix Anchor is used with a sand line configuration there will be a lot of side force on the anchor which is not recommended for the Helix Anchor.

I am concerned about the use of the Helix Anchor from the stand point of maintenance.

Moorings are required to be raised from the bottom and visually inspected every two years.

This bi-annual inspection requires cleaning the growth from the chain and each chain link is inspected and measured. If a link or links have been worn or rusted enough to reduce the size below the limit, the link or the whole chain will need replacement.

The Helix Anchor will be screwed into the bottom of the bay into the sand layer below the sediment. The mooring chain is then shackled to the post. To inspect the chain will require a diver to locate the post, clean off the growth and remove the shackle from the post to raise the chains for inspection. Then dive and reattach the chain shackles to the post. Or the diver will need to clean the growth from the chains and inspect the chains in the water. I question the quality of a diver inspection of the chains in the silted low visibility Newport Bay. The inspection vessel will need to be smaller to get between the boats on the Helix Anchor end. Also it may require both boats attached to the anchor to have the maintenance done at the same time.

I see the post of the Helix Anchor is thicker than the chains and it may have a longer life than the chain, but the Helix Anchor will need to be removed and inspected at some time or after a period of time the Helix Anchor will just be replaced. I suspect the cost of replacing the Helix Anchor will exceed the cost of the way moorings are maintained today. The mooring holder will still need to have the other end mooring chain and weights inspected bi- annually using the technology used today.

If the Helix Anchor is unscrewed from the bottom to allow the chains to be raised for the bi-annual inspection, I suspect the sand layer will become disturbed with the action of removal and insertion of the Helix Anchor. I also suspect the holding power of the Helix Anchor will be reduced due to the sand will not be packed as tight. Has there been any testing under those circumstances?
The drawing shows the chain going from the Helix Anchor up to the boat. Typical anchors and the present moorings use the weight of the chain and the centenary of it on 15-350

the bottom to adsorb the pressure of the wind gusts so the anchor does not pull out or drag the weight and the gust does not pull the cleat from the boat. The excess chain also compensates for the 8' variation in the tide. How well will the Helix Anchor handle the 8' tide variation with a short chain?
It is interesting that the Helix Anchor has the highest pullout force when the boat will be applying the lowest force, in no wind conditions. And the Helix Anchor pullout force decreases as the wind increases causing pulling to the side.

There have been many mooring weights lost at the bottom of Newport Bay. Installing the Helix Anchor should find a few of those lost weights making it difficult to install.

Sidney Hood
mooring permittee
H-511
15-351

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

Page 1 of 1 ends

15-352

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 15-353

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 15-354

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 15-355

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 15-356

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 15-357

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

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 15-358

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

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 15-359

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 4 ends

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 15-360

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November S, 2022

Page 5 ends

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 15-361

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 15-362

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 15-363

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
15-364

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 15-365

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 15-366

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 15-367

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 15-368

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 15-369

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
15-370

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 15-371

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 15-372

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 15-373

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 15-374

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 15-375

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 15-376

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 15-377

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 15-378

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 15-379

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
15-380

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
15-381

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 15-382

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,
15-383

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 15-384

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 15-385

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-rd-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 15-386

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 15-387

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 15-388

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 15-389

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
15-390

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 15-391

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
15-392

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 15-393

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 15-394

AMERICAS CUP HARBOR

LOW WIND EXPOSURE

1. This is a small protected body of water at the foot of Point Loma Heights.

2. Americas Cup Harbor is protected against prevailing Westerly Winds from the Ocean.

3. Topographical Maps show that Point Loma Heights and the Pont Loma Ridge is between 200-400 ft high. (Twice the height of Hoag Hospital at most places)

4. The limited winds that blow through that mooring field are no match for the prevailing winds that blow through the open waters of Newport Harbor.

LOW CURENT EXPOSURE

1. Americas Cup Harbor is almost fully encircled by Marinas with slips, and with one entrance.

2. Most water movement is vertical, instead of lateral.

3. Swell and current exposure is limited due to the size of the entrance. Currents flow past the entrance.

4. The Americas Cup Model is not in use anywhere else in San Diego Bay, where there are open and exposed mooring fields, like all mooring fields here in Newport Harbor.

Most boats in Newport Harbor need a large safe zone for when the forces of nature bare down on them. Chipping away at those safe zones makes for unsafe mooring fields.

Please reconsider efforts to take away safe zones around boats in mooring fields.
15-395

1 :Y •..dr.....X 4J�I'Li giFT HItLCRE
Sari Dego x
� 3
HEIGHTS J Al
Sari Diego
s kr poi i s
E� _: � Yi` F � GCS 6F4fiFiSL
0�y pg� ii yypyy
4St7€L� °
S, 4 iEB- �v£F _
{{yxy^ €
srR°e
d,��g
# 7. t{aixi-ziF li $:Ea F "sib. a-°z""+.3 a x sa%rsw 3?. a
U ,r a c .
5`�1ret San
Cliffs
€
■�{$ '{L, Q �`+� yy.:-g �`9gq $�'E§ p 3 -..F,iMIYc, L°s#€€ $ f 6p„yq. .�' Ii �bSA (b�� d �k1 R1, h.. `j Ei "e2t' x-°�} ':A
r N #
AR"
'' Z Um
E 9 Y M { i p
; 'y E ?P .y,, R 5 - P I .,# E Y• -: a€,F- `` ?':c j
{ E� E q�[/ i, 11
KC y i Pp y{�yy^� j� 3 y?p}
Y $Eid�cA i`bF�na K 1 sort.
a..'i
a i£'$ E gg � t
dx:�s'.Erx.., n�v°#j tq § # !a #s 3k n
�9 a - EY x a u 3u
s€x sai >€ �.gg"� [
Y3�OF £ yont # J y} £. £.
x� 9 �.ZZF^gxi>?rma

51.1 ?"` °6 gp''g '?`,,�`......'
� €• ; � a do � � - f
{gN 9§ g t
Park
Coronado
£ EE wti:
.#^ x .. £>_
d ;; ., r�^;F§:i'i{{€€9�9 (($
t '. $ i. 11§>,I , e FEie
ie.7 aTtaa ,

5.2 -i��y"///:
yy.M.
6 E F
15-396
F t

Hi guys, just a thought are any of you sailors? No one approaches a mooring downwind. Your stern will get pushed over your moorage line or drift into another boat.

Boats are not like cars you have no brakes. If you grab a line with only 20 ft to spare in front of you it is very very easy to ride up on the forward boat and cause damage.

With a one engine boat it's harder to adjust on a line up maneuver in a tight space.

You can't just move sideways.

Boats are all different and don't work like cars regarding parking. Please I beg of you give this a test run before you commit. Try different vessels.

See how experienced yachts people respond.

Sincerely
Meridee Thompson
15-397

i
Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400 Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
3D10 79Dial:00 Ext. 3 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
March 7, 2023
VIA E-MAIL(Ha rborCommissionCanewportbeach ca.gov)
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:
dpcna- cbcearthlaw.com
Re: Wed. March 8, 2023 Agenda Item 6-2; Objection to Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures that Require
Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Review
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation, we wrote to you on November 8, 2022 to inform you that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") and the Harbor Commission 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. A copy of that letter is attached.

The City's proposal to conduct a pilot test involving the relocation of existing mooring tackle and/or construction of new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Additionally, the proposed revisions include new restrictions regarding designated mooring row lengths, which are undefined and will require certain permittees to relocate, making it more difficult for those permittees to access moorings, and thereby impeding coastal access. Thus, the City and Harbor Commission may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.

Furthermore, the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it will have environmental impacts related to public access to water, aesthetics, and construction of new moorings or relocation of existing mooring tackle in the submerged mooring field as detailed here and in our November 8, 2022 letter.
15-398

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
March 7, 2023

Page 2 ends

We ask that you withhold your approval of this proposed project until proper environmental review is conducted, including the preparation of an initial study and circulation of a negative declaration or environmental impact report for public comment.

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. Accordingly, they constitute development under the Coastal Act and as such, must be reviewed for approval by the Coastal Commission.

Sincerely,
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
Enclosure
15-399

Enclosure
3 15-400

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

I. The Coastal Commission Has Original Jurisdiction Over the Mooring Fields.

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

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 5 15-402

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

bear all costs of relocating their vessel and the displaced vessel.

III. The Proposed Phase I Pilot Test Constitutes Development and Requires a Coastal Development Permit.

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 6 15-403

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 4 ends

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. 7 15-404

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

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.

Sincerely,
-/47�` +A-'
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
8 15-405

From: Tim Lewis
Sent: March 04, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: mooring changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am concerned with the use of helical anchors. While the city has agreed to pay for their maintenance there could be a major increase in the cost to replace the gear attached to them. When we maintain the current weighted gear, it is done with a barge on the surface at a fair cost. To make any changes to the gear attached to a helical anchor, that can't be lifted, it would require diving at a cost far exceeding the current cost.

You are doing a great job of working out the issues, please discuss this issue with a contractor before planning helical anchors.

I would propose another option. Simply increase the gross weight of the common mooring anchor and attach two boats to a common weighted anchor. And servicing all three anchors for two boats at the same time, there would be no increase in cost saving the city and everyone money.

Thanks for all you do.

Tim Lewis
15-406

From: natalie fogarty
Sent: March 04, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Harbor commission,
I object to the planned double mooring proposal and possible removal of my vessel .. The current system has been in place for years and we have had access to the harbor without banging into other boats on the buoys. The idea of moving my boat to another location is not right. I have a home on the street that my boat is located.

PLEASE do not do this to the many boat owners that have on shore moorings I I Natalie Fogarty
BUY S-3
15-407

From: Meridee Thompson
Sent: March 05, 2023 6:53 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: mooring fields
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed changes to our bayfront in the way of mooring movement and reassignment.

Pluses: Making a few larger boats move to allow for passage between moorings.

There have been times when a problem boat was placed on an empty mooring adjacent to us by the Harbor Department where the boat was abandoned and two generations (at our count) of seagulls nested and procreated on its deck and under the dingy sitting facedown on the bow.

These birds rested on our boat and neighboring boats and pooped on everything, which drew kelp flies. It took two years (maybe more) for someone to respond to the complaints about this derelict. It would be nice to have a faster response on these types of problems.

Minuses: No one who has ever tried to put a boat on a mooring seems to be on the City Council these days. We have had our mooring for almost 50 years and have had about 19 boats on it over the years as we love to experience all types of boats, have a passion for them. We see lots of boat damages in the future as boaters try to maneuver to and from moorings that are positioned in the way the proposed dual boat system works. We feel that the "C' field is not a good test area as it is in a spot not as affected by winds and tides as is the entire H group on a typical windy afternoon on the bay.

It's just wrong. The entire concept of neat and tidy rows is antithesis to the interesting culture we have in the mooring fields. It's as if the council thinks boats respond like cars when "parking" them. Don't they have better things to spend public funds on than experimenting with our mooring system? I believe their future plans are basically an attempt to lure bigger and bigger and BIGGER boats into our harbor. It's not enough that they have pimped out what used to be a fun boat parade to the sewer cruisers at Christmas. Now they just want to prostrate themselves in the face of the rich and famous. Those very few visitors from that uber class will cause them to do this? Move us all so allow them to pass by? It seems this is a farce, that they say public accessibility. It's more a public shakedown and no middle class boaters will be able to enter into the very now accessible mooring field boat storage system with the future as it is envisioned by this council.

Meridee Thompson
15-408

From: Sunjana Supekar
Sent: March 07, 2023 3:03 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback
Cc: Doug Carstens
Subject: March 8, 2023 Harbor Commission Meeting; Comments re Agenda Item 6-2
Attachments: 2023-03-07 Letter to Harbor Commission final.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 Carstens, Black and Minteer on behalf of the Newport Mooring Association regarding Agenda Item 6-2 for the March 8, 2023 City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Sunjana Supekar
Sunjana Supekar (she/her)

CARSTENS, BLACK & MINTEER LLP
(Please note, our firm name has been updated!)
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
15-409

From:

L. Scott Karlin
Sent:

March 07, 2023 3:54 PM
To:

Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council; Blank, Paul; Harbor Feedback; NMA Email Board
Subject:

Request that no action on Harbor Code changes without Promised Stakeholder Meeting
Attachments:

Letter re Need for Stakeholder Meeting on Title 17 Changes as Promised.docx; Letter re Need for Stakeholder Meeting on Title 17 Changes as Promised.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Harbor Commission and the City Council,
For your consideration, please find below and attached, my request that no action be taken on recommendations
on Harbor Code changes without proper notice and the
promised stakeholder meeting on this important matter.

This is being sent in relation to the Proposed Mooring
Realignment Plan, which is Item # 6-2 on the Agenda for the March 8th Harbor Commission Meeting. I am
requesting the attached and this email be entered into the official record.

Respectfully,
Scott Karlin
L. Scott Karlin
The Karlin Law Firm, LLP
Main Office:
13522 Newport Ave, Suite 201
Tustin, California 92780
email: [email protected]
cell phone 949-371-8228
15-410

Need for Promised Stakeholder Meeting on Changes to Title 17 of the Newport Beach Harbor Code
Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
It has come to my attention that there will be a possible vote on changes to Title 17 of the Harbor Code.

No vote should take place on recommending the proposed code changes without conducting the Stakeholder meeting promised by the Harbor Commission at the meeting on November 9, 2023. In addition, there should be no vote on recommending these changes because they are not needed, as discussed elsewhere by the NMA.

At the November 9th Harbor Commission meeting, the matter on the agenda being considered, and which would have been part of the promised Stakeholder Meeting were (a) realignment of mooring fields into a double row system by putting boats within 20 feet of another boat bow to bow or bow to stern, and (b) various significant changes to Title 17 affecting moorings. This was noted in the minutes as "recommendations being included in the proposed draft ordinance amending City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 17."
No vote was taken on this matter, instead, all the commissioners (except for one who abstained) stated that prior to taking action there should be a "stakeholder meeting." Clearly this promise was meant to cover the matter under consideration, namely the particulars of putting boats closer together and the "proposed draft ordinance" of the changes to Title 17.

Following the November 9th meeting, the first available date was obtained to allow for the stakeholder meeting, which was the date that would have otherwise been used for the next harbor code meeting, namely Wednesday, December 14th (the same date as the boat parade). Just prior to the meeting, Chair Scully requested a video meeting to go over the agenda for the stakeholder meeting. It was not a stakeholder meeting, but only for discussion of the process, who would speak first, when questions would be allowed and so forth.

During that discussion I asked if it was possible to clear up two items in the then proposed Title 17 changes for which there might not be controversy. I then asked a few questions about, at most, 5% of the items in the proposed code changes. One item was a reference to the definition of "New Permits," asking if would not be better to expressly state in the code that if an existing permit is transferred, or a name is added, or put into a trust, or if the yearly questionnaire is filled out, that would not create a "New Permit". This appeared to be needed in light of the practice of the Harbormaster to use the words "new permit" when re -issuing permits in on transfers etc. Another question was if should not be expressly stated that any moving boats or moorings as part of any realignment plan would require City Council approval to remove any uncertainty about that. Again, these questions related to at most 5% of the language in the proposed harbor code changes and were only a discussion with three mooring 15-411

permit holders present. No notice of these discussions had been sent out, given it was just a video conference to discuss how best to conduct the upcoming stakeholder meeting.

A few days later, what turned out to be a "partial" Stakeholder meeting took place. In that meeting, permit holders were prepared to discuss the proposed harbor code changes along the other matters.

The commissioners projected on the screen the items that were to be part of the Stakeholder meeting.

One of the items was, of course, the changes to Title 17. However, when the first permit holder started to discuss Title 17 and put up the first page of the multiple pages of changes, all the stakeholders were told that there would be no discussion of changes to Title 17. This was repeated many times. As a result, there was no stakeholder meeting on any of the Title 17 changes, let alone any of the newly revised proposed changes. The reasons given were that they were "under revision," suggesting there were significant changes from the prior draft, and they had not yet been approved by the City Attorney, so there was nothing to discuss. While this seemed odd, since prior drafts had been made public in "draft form," the stakeholders were told not to worry and that they should soon be given a copy and they would have plenty of time to review and discuss.

The new Title 17 changes were first seen a day before posting the agenda for the March 8, 2023, Harbor Commission meeting. As of March 7, the NMA is, at most, only halfway through reviewing these changes, whereas the subcommittee has had months working with and/or seeing various prior drafts which drafts have not heretofore been shared with the NMA or permit holder or the public. What is more, as a practical matter, over 99% of mooring permittees have not seen these major code changes.

At a very minimum, there needs to be a scheduled stakeholder meeting or study session on these code changes, preferably with the code changes having been mailed and emailed to the permit holders. It would also be helpful if the full harbor commission could hear studied comments by stakeholders on these code changes and attend the shareholder meeting. The stakeholder meeting would complete both the promise made by the Harbor Commission on November 9th, as well as being the right thing to do.

What follows are excerpts regarding the November 9th, promise made by the Harbor Commission. If needed, the NMA could produce a video of statements made by the subcommittee on December 14th that there would be no discussion of Title 17 changes at any time in the meeting.

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Karlin
Cell 949-371-8228
Email: [email protected]
Excerpts of Draft Minutes of Newport Beach Harbor Commission follow on next page:

NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 5 p.m.

3. Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchanges Requests
15-412

This report and presentation will update the Harbor Commission on Commissioner Beer's efforts, process and research. The Commission will be asked to approve recommendations related to optimizing utilization of the mooring fields and allowing mooring permittees to request a permit exchange to mooring of a different size. The recommendations are included in proposed draft ordinance amending City of Newport Municipal Code, Title 17
Following Public Comments on the mooring code changes and reconfiguration, the following was stated/promised/decided (comment by NMA):

Vice Chair Beer emphasized that the Harbor Commission is aware of the California Coastal Commission's Coastal Development Permit requirements. He thanked everyone who spoke about the topic for insisting the City look into that and advised they would do so promptly. He agreed there should be more public input and would recommend that an NMA stakeholder meeting is held that is opened up to all constituents by the end of the year. He advised he looks forward to working on this together with the NMA and looking forward not backward. He recommended the Harbor Commission not take action on the item this evening to allow for the stakeholder meeting.

Secretary Yahn agreed there has been a lot of information offered this evening to consider. He advised this is an evolutionary process 3 years in the making. He advised the Harbor Commission's job is to improve the waterways for everyone who enjoys the harbor, not just the mooring permittees. He defended Vice Chair Beer's motives for the proposal and advised the
Harbor Commission serves the public. He expressed support for holding a stakeholder meeting with NMA.

Commissioner Marston thanked everyone from the public who provided public comments and noted they are also reading the emails that are received on the topic.

She advised that changes have been made to the proposal based on public input. She expressed support for a stakeholder
meeting to clarify misconceptions and hear ideas from the mooring permittees.

She recommended that a meeting be held soon.

Commissioner Williams, (per the draft minutes, did not state one way or the other if he supported a stakeholder meeting on the proposals — comment by the NMA.) Chair Scully agreed with holding a stakeholder meeting and noted he has heard the comments from the public before the end of the year. He recommended NMA members provide their concerns to the NMA board before the stakeholder meeting so all concerns can be addressed.
15-413

15-414

Executive Summary

OPPOSITION TO DANGEROUS DOUBLE ROW MOORING FIELD REALIGNMENT PLAN AND CODE CHANGES Introduction
The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) is strongly opposed to the Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Realignment Plan, as it is unnecessary and dangerous to both the boats moored in the mooring fields, as well as to all human powered harbor users such as kids, paddleboarders, kayakers, float tube fishermen, etc., who use the mooring fields as a safe area away from boat traffic to practice these activities. The new plan is based to address a non-existent problem and is patterned on a similar layout in a harbor that is very much different than Newport Harbor. The plan will change harbor views significantly and many waterfront homes will have their views impacted in a negative way. Changes to the harbor code are not needed to address the plan, and significant questions have been raised regarding the motivation for the plan. This Opposition primarily addresses the dangerous double row mooring field layout. A full review of the harbor code changes that have been proposed will be addressed separately, if necessary, after the NMA is able to study these in detail.

Summary

1. A Solution Looking for a Problem. The history of accidents or other safety issues in the mooring fields in their current configuration is negligible.

2. The New Plan is Unsafe and Dangerous
A. The New Plan Compromises the Safety of All Human Powered Activities in the Harbor.

In their current configuration the mooring fields serve as quiet and safe park -like areas for kids and adults to paddleboard, kayak, and occasionally swim. A double row system designed to widen fairways through the mooring fields will only invite more small boat traffic, with resulting wakes and propellers which will substantially increase the risk of injury.

B. The Double Row System Creates and Amplifies Danger of Collisions Within the Mooring Fields.

The proposed system will place paired boats within 20 to 30 feet of one another either in front of or behind, which is on average about half the current distance. With the tidal currents and winds present in Newport Harbor this will significantly increase the risk of collision to boats leaving or attempting to get back onto moorings. This will inevitably lead to more property damages and injuries than what has been experienced in the past.

3. The Plan is Based on False and Misleading Information.

A. False Information Has Been Presented about Americas Cup Harbor.

Proponents of this plan are modelling it completely on the fact that it has been successful in a very dissimilar location called Americas Cup Harbor, which is a very protected "harbor within a harbor" located in a small cove inside the greater San Diego Harbor. The primary designer of this plan does not understand the differences between these two harbors and continually insists that conditions are similar. Over the last 40 years San Diego has never attempted to use this model anywhere else in their large harbor and they have many mooring fields that they manage. The NMA has done studies to prove that these significant differences exist and has video evidence to support that there is virtually no tidal current in Americas Cup Harbor and that there is strong tidal current in Newport Harbor. Winds are also greater in Newport Harbor than in America's Cup Harbor, and the

Page 1 of 3 ends

15-415

data supports this claim, if you understand how the subtlety of how the data is collected in the San Diego area.

A double row mooring field layout will only work in a lake -like environment and should be rejected for consideration to use in Newport Harbor based on the safety concerns alone.

B. False Information Has Been Presented About the Applicability of "Marina Standards." Proponents of the plan claim that Standards for Marinas apply and/or should apply to mooring fields. This is simply false, and they were forced to admit this in a letter to the City. Fairways in marinas need to be much wider than those in mooring fields to allow a boat to turn around because each fairway ends in a fixed dock and you cannot move a boat around a fixed dock.

4. A Few Temporary Issues and Concerns About Optics are Easily Managed Without These Changes. From time to time a few visual concerns arise, such as a stray buoy, or a single row becoming out of alignment.

These can be managed by use of spreader lines, which keep buoys in place, and by minor adjustments to the row. The use of higher technology tools could help in more exacting placements of mooring weights.

5. Proposed Changes to the Harbor Code are Unnecessary, Confusing, and Take Power Away from the City Council.

Harbor Code Changes Are Not Necessary. The proposed code changes are not needed to run a "test". 90% of the proposed changes have nothing to do with the test and will need to be separately studied. If the test fails, these code changes will all need to be undone. This is a classic example of putting the cart before the Horse.

The NMA has already done a significant study and test and has concluded that safety would be greatly compromised in the new plan. The NMA has offered to find voluntary member moorings for use in any additional tests. If absolutely necessary, the Harbormaster could be authorized to temporarily move a few moorings but should ask for volunteers first.

6. The Extensive Harbor Code Changes Go Well Beyond What Is Needed for a Test and Have Not Been the Topic of a Single Stakeholder Meeting Contrary to What the Commission Promised. At the November 9, 2022, meeting, the Commissioners promised to allow at least one stakeholder meeting to go over the agenda item. That would have clearly covered Changes to Title 17. However, at the one Stakeholder meeting, the three Commissioners present would not allow any discussion of Title 17 changes. This makes no sense. The Subcommittee has had 3 months to develop these changes and yet the NMA has seen them for only 3 days.

7. You Cannot Conduct a Test Without Success Criteria. The proponents say they are eager to conduct a "test" but have failed to provide any information, let alone success criteria, on what they are testing, and how to measure the results. The issue is not holding power of anchors. It is the degree of difficulty of getting on and off moorings for everyone - the young, the old, the able and not so able, in many different wind, tide, and current conditions. Before you ask for a test, there must be agreement on how to test, what to test, and how to measure its success or failure.

8. Undisclosed Beneficiaries at the Expense of Others. Make no mistake, the massive movement of moorings will result in winners and losers of shoreline views. There are no controls, and the Harbor Commission will end up being king makers giving away better views to some homeowners at the expense of diminishing the views of other homeowners. This will inevitably give rise to questions of favoritism, and no matter how it plays out, there will be unhappy people and trust in Government will be questioned. Why let this play out so unnecessarily?

Page 2 of 3 ends

15-416

9. Additional Moorings Are Unnecessary. The proponents also suggest that more people could use moorings if more moorings existed. Since most people think there are already too many moorings in the harbor, this will be an unpopular thing to advocate for amongst both waterfront homeowners and existing harbor users. Since there are an average of about 100 unused offshore moorings at any time, and since the City already has permission to rent those out to "Subpermittees," it seems obvious that the City could rent these out on a medium- or long-term basis to accommodate many new users. The NMA has provided the Commission with a model plan to show how this could work. This plan would be easy to implement and would result in immediate increased revenues to the City.

Respectfully Submitted,
The Newport Mooring Association
PO Box 1118
Newport Beach, CA 92659
[email protected]
949-771-8600

Page 3 of 3 ends

15-417

For Newport Beach Harbor Commission meeting on March 8, 2023., regarding the Proposed Mooring Realignment Plan, which is Item #6-2 on the Agenda for the March 8th Harbor Commission Meeting. I am requesting this document be entered into the official record.

Page 1 of 4 ends

15-418

name is added, or put into a trust, or if the yearly questionnaire is filled out, that would not create a "New Permit". This appeared to be needed in light of the practice of the Harbormaster to use the words "new permit" when re -issuing permits in on transfers etc. Another question was if should not be expressly stated that any moving boats or moorings as part of any realignment plan would require City Council approval to remove any uncertainty about that. Again, these questions related to at most 5% of the language in the proposed harbor code changes and were only a discussion with three mooring permit holders present. No notice of these discussions had been sent out, given it was just a video conference to discuss how best to conduct the upcoming stakeholder meeting.

A few days later, what turned out to be a "partial" Stakeholder meeting took place. In that meeting, permit holders were prepared to discuss the proposed harbor code changes along the other matters.

The commissioners projected on the screen the items that were to be part of the Stakeholder meeting.

Respectfully Submitted,
Scott Karlin
Cell 949-371-8228
Email: [email protected]

Page 2 of 4 ends

15-419

Excerpts of Draft Minutes of Newport Beach Harbor Commission follow on next page:

NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES City Council Chambers —100 Civic Center Drive
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 5 p.m.

3. Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchanges Requests
This report and presentation will update the Harbor Commission on Commissioner Beer's efforts, process and research. The Commission will be asked to approve recommendations related to optimizing utilization of the mooring fields and allowing mooring permittees to request a permit exchange to mooring of a different size. The recommendations are included in proposed draft ordinance amending City of Newport Municipal Code, Title 17
Following Public Comments on the mooring code changes and reconfiguration, the following was stated/promised/decided (comment by NMA):

He recommended the Harbor Commission not take action on the item this evening to allow for the stakeholder meeting.

Page 3 of 4 ends

15-420

proposal and advised the
Harbor Commission serves the public. He expressed support for holding a stakeholder meeting with NMA.

Commissioner Marston thanked everyone from the public who provided public comments and noted they are also reading the emails that are received on the topic.

She advised that changes have been made to the proposal based on public input. She expressed support for a stakeholder
meeting to clarify misconceptions and hear ideas from the mooring permittees.

She recommended that a meeting be held soon.

Commissioner Williams, (per the draft minutes, did not state one way or the other if he supported a stakeholder meeting on the proposals — comment by the NMA. ) Chair Scully agreed with holding a stakeholder meeting and noted he has heard the comments from the public before the end of the year. He recommended NMA members provide their concerns to the NMA board before the stakeholder meeting so all concerns can be addressed.

Page 4 of 4 ends

15-421

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission & City of Newport Beach City Council, The Newport Mooring Association (NMA) is strongly opposed to the Harbor Commission's Mooring Realignment Plan. We find it completely unnecessary and do not understand or agree with the Harbor Commission's objectives as they relate to the mooring fields. Newport Harbor is functioning better than ever, and we are not aware of any current safety issues in the mooring fields.

Summary thoughts:
■ This is a plan looking for a problem and there is no problem. ■ The plan will create major safety issues for Mooring Permittees. ■ The plan decreases safety for all human powered harbor users — kids, paddleboarders, kayakers, float tube fishermen, etc.
■ The plan is based on false information about conditions in a different harbor ■ The plan is based on false information which compares marinas to moorings ■ The plan disregards the USCG definition of Special Anchorages as it encourages vessel traffic through the mooring fields. Fairways through mooring fields are not "navigable water". ■ The plan will compromise many shoreline views. The parking lot look is not a good one. ■ The plan will deflate mooring permit values. Is this a goal? If so, why? It does not look good given that the City apparently plans to spend a lot of money acquiring moorings in the future.
■ Why conduct a test when we already know the answer to the most important question? ■ You cannot conduct a test without success criteria
■ There is no need to make changes to Title 17 at this time. ■ The extensive code changes go well beyond what is needed for a test and have not been the topic of a single stakeholder meeting contrary to what the Commission promised. ■ There is no need for new moorings. The existing subpermittee program can be easily expanded with some simple management tweaks to take advantage of the 100 offshore moorings that are often vacant. This could be an easy win/win situation for everyone. ■ The plan creates undisclosed Beneficiaries at the expense of others, giving rise to questions of back -room favoritism.

A Solution Looking for a Problem
The NMA feels that the Harbor Commission's plan is a solution looking for a problem when there really is no problem. The NMA believes any perceived problems are minimal and can be solved simply. To use an analogy -- If your car might need a slight tune up, why rebuild the engine? When the NMA does a list of pros and cons on this new plan, the NMA can identify zero pros and many cons including significant safety issues on the con side of the list.

The NMA respectfully asserts that the three Harbor Commissioners on the Mooring Optimization Subcommittee do not grasp the nuances of safe boat handling within the mooring fields in Newport Harbor and do not understand the safety issues that would result if the new plan were to be implemented. The NMA recently polled its membership on whether its members favored the Harbor Commission's new realignment plan. There were 154 responses, and the results of the poll were 148 to

Page 1 ends

15-422

6 against it. 26 of those responses were from USCG licensed Captains and all 26 voted against it. The NMA's membership tends towards older very experienced boaters with many members having over 50 years of boating experience. We are the experts in Newport Beach mooring field safety and our concerns should be listened to. We have commented extensively on our safety concerns and yet no material changes have been made to the plan.

The Plan is Based on False Information on Conditions in the Harbor The new Mooring Field Realignment Plan uses a double row system patterned after a similar layout used in America's Cup Harbor in San Diego. This system places paired boats within 20 feet of one another.

The NMA feels this design would be very problematic if implemented in Newport Harbor. Newport Harbor experiences strong tidal currents every day and is more like a river than a lake. The double row system has only been used successfully in lake -like environments such as America's Cup Harbor. The NMA has done fundamental research in testing the strength of the tidal current in both locations and has documented our findings in a couple of videos. As was expected, the results were quite conclusive in that there is a strong tidal current present in Newport Harbor and no measurable tidal current whatsoever in America's Cup Harbor. Links to these videos are provided. The wind conditions are also different, not only during typical summer afternoon winds, but also during mild and moderate Santa Ana wind events. The selective wind data used by the proponents of the plan do not measure winds inside Americas Cup Harbor, which is a harbor within a harbor, as the data they display is from a different location in San Diego Harbor, and even that other location does not have anything like our Santa Ana winds.

The NMA respectfully asserts that the primary designer of the new Mooring Realignment Plan does not have a very good understanding of the way vessels are actually operated in the mooring fields of Newport Harbor. He does not understand the nuances and challenges of safely mooring a vessel onto a mooring in a river. To safely moor a vessel onto a mooring in challenging conditions is not an easy thing to do and even skilled operators do not get it right every time. It is common for vessel operators to have to exit a failed approach to a mooring and then start over with a new approach. In a single row mooring field layout, which is what exists now, there are many safe exits to a failed approach and a vessel operator can terminate a failed approach with the only wounds being to his or her pride. In the new proposed double row design, a failed approach is much more likely to result in a collision with a nearby vessel especially the paired vessel moored just 20 feet away.

The Plan is Based on False Information which Compares Marinas to Moorings The primary designer of the new mooring field layout falsely claims and repeatedly asserts in his slides and presentations that standards established for fixed dock marinas apply and/or should apply to mooring fields. The Chairman of the Harbor Commission in a letter to the City Council was forced to admit that marina standards do not apply to moorings. Even after sending the letter to the Council admitting the false statement, the designer of the plan continues to use the same slides that perpetuate these same false and misleading statements in stakeholder meetings to residents and others. These slides are even part of the materials shown on the March 8, 2023 agenda.

Navigating a boat into a marina with fixed docks can be a bit tricky since there is "no way out" If you miss your slip because of winds or currents, you will often need to make a 360 degree turn inside a fairway. That is why standards were created which required large fairways inside marinas. In a well -

Page 12 ends

15-423

designed mooring field, if you miss in an approach to your mooring because of winds or tidal current, you can exit your failed approach in several ways but a 360-degree turn will never be needed because there are no fixed docks in your way. Experienced operators are familiar with this, and the claims that there should be wider fairways to meet "marina standards" either shows a total lack of understanding of how mooring fields work, or is an intentional distortion of the facts.

Unsafe for Kids, Kayakers, Paddle Boarders, and Many Others There are many major topics of disagreement where the Harbor Commission and the NMA have completely different perspectives, but one of the largest and most important differences in perspective has to do with the fairways in the mooring fields.

The Harbor Commission thinks it is a good goal to have large fairways through the mooring fields to encourage vessel traffic and has self-proclaimed those fairways to be "navigable water." The NMA does not think this is a good idea at all. It is the NMA's opinion that installing very wide fairways that cut through the mooring fields would degrade safety for a majority of harbor users including not only the mooring permittees, but also all of the human powered craft including swimmers, paddleboarders, kayakers, and float tube fisherman that are currently very active within the confines of the very safe and parklike mooring fields where there is less vessel traffic. The NMA believes that vessel traffic should be encouraged to transit the harbor via main channels that go around mooring fields and not through them.

The Newport Beach mooring fields are defined as "Special Anchorage Areas" in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This means that vessels anchored in these areas are not required to carry or exhibit anchorage lights. In the CFR, under Title 33 — Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 1— Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Subchapter 1— Anchorages, Part 109 — General, 109.10 Special Anchorage Areas, contained in the very definition of Special Anchorage Areas, the code reads:
"The areas so designated should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels." The NMA respectfully asserts that the Harbor Commission is incorrect in their definition of "navigable waters" with respect to the fairways in the mooring fields.

However, the NMA does believe that some fairways in the mooring fields could look better and is very supportive of achieving this. The NMA believes that if spreader lines were required on vacant moorings, this would solve 90 percent of the problems related to the optics of funny looking fairways. A few moorings probably do need to be moved slightly and the NMA supports doing this with the use of higher technology tools than what has been used in the past.

The Plan Will Favor Undisclosed Homeowners at the Expense of Other Homeowners and some End of Street Views
Regarding optics, the proposed plan would definitely result in a different look to the mooring fields. It is a subjective question as to whether the new look would be better or worse. One of our members who recently visited America's Cup Harbor had the opinion that the mooring field in that harbor had a look that reminded him of a Costco parking lot. Is a parking lot look with boats clumped together a better look than we what we now enjoy? A boat at anchor is generally a beautiful thing to look at. Many artists have done paintings of boats at anchor, but boats grouped together in marinas are seldom the subject of artwork. When you put two 45-foot boats within 20 feet of one another, and when you consider the

Page 13 ends

15-424

mooring balls and the criss-cross of mooring lines, a 110-foot wall of boats will be created. Many waterfront homes on Balboa Island are on lots that are 30 feet wide.

There are going to be winners and losers in the view lottery. How is that going to be fair? But we know, it will not be a lottery. At the design stage where the fairways are placed, the size of the rows, and sections can be set out to favor expanded views for some, and at the detriment of others. Whether real or perceived, this will not go well, and there will be future controversy on these decisions.

Extensive Code Changes are Not Needed for A Test, and Need to Be Studied — Forcing Changes Without Study Violates Stakeholder Meetings Promised by the Commission The Harbor Commission wants to make drastic changes to Title 17, and they seem to want to do it prematurely. In fact, it seems to be their primary goal. There is no need to make changes to Title 17 just to run a test. The new Mooring Realignment Plan adds layers and layers of bureaucracy to Title 17, and most importantly it does away with guaranteed specific locations of mooring permits.

At the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting, the stated proposal was Title 17 changes regarding moorings, locations of moorings and reconfiguration plan. At that meeting the Subcommittee was directed to have stakeholder meetings, in particular a stakeholder meeting with the mooring permit holders. One stakeholder meeting occurred but the NMA and permittees were told they would only allow discussion about the double row plan and not about any Title 17 changes. When a permit holder attempted to display the then current proposed Title 17 changes, he was cut off by a Subcommittee member who stated Title17 changes would not be discussed at all. The reason stated was that the Subcommittee had not seen the "final" version approved by the City Attorney. Having now just posted the Title 17 changes a few days before the March 8 Commission meeting, the Commission would violate its own promise to allow time to study this and at least have one meaningful stakeholder meeting on these extensive changes, many of which have not been seen before.

If Mooring Locations Are No Longer Specific and Permanent, Mooring Permit Values Will Be Impacted Negatively
A few general observations can be made, without studying the new details. Mooring permits have always been specific to a location. If a mooring permit no longer guarantees a specific location, the value of mooring permits will go down. Is this the primary goal of this whole exercise? The NMA fears that this might be the case given that certain Harbor Commissioners have previously expressed outrage that a mooring permit could be worth thousands of dollars. The NMA does not understand why they feel this way. There are many examples of government permits that have value — airwaves, offshore drilling permits, grazing land, mooring permits in Avalon, etc. In Newport Beach this is the way it has always been done. Why make changes that will hurt the permittees who were only playing by the rules set up and condoned by the City of Newport Beach for decades? Is there an ulterior motive here? Is the Harbor Commission intentionally trying to drive down mooring permit values so that the City can buy them for less money in the future? On a staff report dated October 12, 2022, titled Harbor and Beaches Master Plan Projects — Review, it is stated that the Harbor Commission assists in developing the Plan which identifies future larger, capital projects and the funding mechanisms to achieve those goals. It is designed to be a "living document" to provide a roadmap for harbor and beach -based projects, but it also has the flexibility to be adjusted as

Page 14 ends

15-425

needed. It is considered a planning document to assist in the creation of the annual Capital Improvement Program which ultimately becomes part of the City's annual budget. At the July Harbor Commission meeting, a subcommittee was formed to review the Plan and at the October Harbor Commission meeting that subcommittee recommended the following additions to the Plan:

Potential Projects:
■ Restrooms (shoreside): Improve existing
■ Mooring Buyback: Potential $1 million per year for 30 years ■ Fire Safety Boat: $2 million
The NMA is concerned that there is a long-term master plan being executed already that is not at all fair to existing mooring permittees. Is this a plan put forth by back -room power brokers and political consultants and is the Harbor Commission already acting on it? The NMA would like the new City Council members to be aware of this possibility.

You Cannot Test, Without First Establishing Test Criteria The Harbor Commission wants to do a test in Mooring Field C yet there has been absolutely no reference to any success criteria for such a "test". You can't conduct a test without knowing what subjects are covered by the test and how the test is to be graded. The issues have nothing to do with "holding power" of mooring systems. It is all about the difficulty and safety of getting on and off a mooring for everyone, which includes the young and the old, the fit and the not so fit, and all in various tide, current and wind conditions, and on different types of vessels. Some vessels may have more "windage" than others and some vessels are configured in a way where it takes a long time to get from the bow to an upper helm station. There should be no vote to allow any "test" until a test or tests are designed and discussed openly. That has not yet happened.

No Need for a Test
The NMA does not think it is necessary to do this test. The NMA has already done the most important part of the test with the chip log measurement of current and we have learned that it will be 13 seconds to impact an adjacent boat in common conditions. That is the most important thing that can be learned from this test. To those with experience there is enough right there to abandon the double row mooring field layout. It's just common sense.

Additional Moorings Not Needed — You Can Increase Mooring Use without New Moorings The new plan would add new City owned moorings to an already crowded harbor. Why are new moorings necessary when 20 percent of existing offshore moorings are usually vacant and the City already has the right to sublet these moorings? It would just be a matter of making some easy management tweaks to get the existing Subpermittee rules optimized for medium- and longer -term rentals. The NMA has shown a good workable plan to the Harbor Commission that would result in immediate extra revenue to the City. Is the real reason behind the new moorings just another tool to drive down the values of existing mooring permits?
The NMA understands and appreciates that Commissioner Beer has put in a lot of time into this project.

It is hard to abandon a project that so much time has been spent on, but that is the correct decision in

Page 15 ends

15-426

this case. The City should not be compelled to make a bad decision just because Mr. Beer has spent a lot of time on a project that he probably wasn't qualified to lead in the first place.

Respectfully Submitted,
The Newport Mooring Association
PO Box 1118
Newport Beach, CA 92659
[email protected]
949-771-8600

Page 16 ends

15-427

ATTACHMENT G
DUDEK
621 CHAPALA STREET
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
T 805.963.0651 F 805.963.2074

MEMORANDUM
To:

Jim Campbell, City of Newport Beach
From:

John Davis IV, Dudek
Subject:

City of Newport Bay's Mooring Field Optimization Initiative - C Field Pilot Project Eelgrass Impact Analysis
Date:

May 4, 2023
cc:

Matt Valerio, Dudek
Laura Masterson, Dudek
Andrea Dransfield, Dudek
Attachment:

Figure 1
This memorandum documents the results of eelgrass surveys and provides an impact analysis and conclusions regarding potential impacts to eelgrass beds that may result from the implementation of the City of Newport Bay's "C" Field Pilot Mooring Reconfiguration Project (project), Newport Bay, California. This project proposes to replace the existing single -row mooring system within the Mooring "C" Field with a double -row mooring system. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the current mooring fields and provide recommendations for new guidelines. As per the March 8, 2023 Harbor Commission Staff Report, the objective of this project is threefold: 1) to more clearly define rows and fairways to improve navigation and safety for all mariners; 2) to optimize the space within the mooring fields; and 3) to add additional City moorings within the current mooring fields and provide guidance for mooring size exchange requests (City of Newport Beach 2023). 1 Proposed Project
The Pilot Project area consists of the C Field, which measures approximately 5.5 acres within the inner harbor. The Field C Pilot mooring reconfiguration proposes double -row moorings. To allow for testing of the new layout and for making any necessary adjustments, only one or two rows may be initially reconfigured. The reconfiguration will include regular inspections from harbor patrol boats as well as interviews with affected permittees and other stakeholders. The relocation of moorings and permittees for the first one or two rows is estimated to take two weeks. Completing the reconfiguration for the rest of C Field is estimated to take 30 days.

The new mooring system would be in the same location and serve the same purpose as the one being replaced.

The reconfiguration would result in a negligible increase in capacity of the mooring field and would employ the same number of buoys as the original design. The use of a Categorical Exemption is precluded where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (Section 15300.2 (c)). The project is within an area where eelgrass is known to be present. As such, an eelgrass impact assessment was conducted in 2022 to show that the project would not have a significant effect on eelgrass habitat (Marine Taxonomic Services Ltd. 2023). Typical moorings cause scarring that destroys eelgrass beds. This pilot

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS project will use conservation moorings that will keep the chain mostly off of the sea floor, al lowing for normal growth of eelgrass beds. Conservation moorings are equipped with floating, flexible rodes that are designed to minimize or eliminate dragon the seafloor by floating throughout the tidal cycle. EeIgrass provides important foraging areas and shelter to young fish and invertebrates, food for migratory waterfowl and sea turtles, and spawning surfaces for invertebrates and fish (NOAA Fisheries 2014). By protecting eelgrass beds, this project will help restore marine life in the harbor.
2 Regulations

2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations

2.1.1 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801-1884) of 1976, as amended in 1996 and reauthorized in 2007 (Magnuson -Stevens Act), is intended to protect fisheries resources and fishing activities within 200 miles of shore. The amended law, also known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297), requires all federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce on proposed projects authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The main purpose of the EFH provisions is to avoid loss of fisheries due to disturbance and degradation of habitat. EFH is regulated under the Magnuson -Stevens Act, protecting waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC 1801 et seq.). Substrates that are considered include sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying waters, and associated biological communities. Congress defined EFH to mean those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. In 2002, NMFS further clarified EFH with the following definitions (50 CFR 600.05-600.930):
■ "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate. ■ "Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.
■ "Necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle.

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are considered high priority areas for conservation, management, or research because they are rare, sensitive, stressed by development, or important to ecosystem function. The HAPC designation does not necessarily mean that additional protections or restrictions are required for an area, but the designation helps to prioritize and focus conservation efforts. EFH guidelines identify HAPCs as types or areas of habitat that are identified based on one or more of the following considerations:
• The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat • The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human -induced environmental degradation • Whether, and to what extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat type • The rarity of the habitat type
DUDEK
14299.03 2
MAY 2023
15-429

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS These areas are detailed in EFH sections of FMPs and are summarized within the Regional Council Approaches to the Identification and Protection of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (NMFS 2001). Current HAPC types are estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and marine protected areas or areas of interest (such as banks, seamounts, and canyons). No marine protected areas occur in or adjacent to the project site; therefore, they would not be affected by the proposed project and are not analyzed in this report.

Seagrass
Seagrasses are one of the only flowering plants, or angiosperms, that can grow in a marine environment. These plants support a diversity of life and can form extensive beds in shallow, protected, estuarine, or other nearshore environments. Two common seagrasses that occur in the west coast region are eelgrass (genus Zostera) and surfgrass (genus Phyllospadix), with eelgrass being the most prevalent in California. Eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. pacifica) beds are located in soft, sandy, sheltered seafloor environments, typically in shallow bays and estuaries.

Eelgrass beds function as nursery grounds and provide habitat forjuvenile fish, snails, sea stars, anemones, crabs, and clams, and further serve as potential foraging habitat for sea turtles. Surfgrass beds are located in the rocky intertidal and subtidal zones with turbulent surf. Surfgrass beds are habitat for several species of invertebrates, juvenile fish, and epiphytic algae. Eelgrass beds are recognized by federal and state statutes as highly valuable and sensitive habitats. Eelgrass has been designated as EFH for various fish species managed under the Magnuson - Stevens Act, and has been listed as a HAPC, identifying it as rare, especially vulnerable to human impacts, particularly important ecologically, and/or located in environmentally stressed areas.

2.1.2 California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines As described in the CEMP (NOAA Fisheries 2014), when impacts to eelgrass would occur, an Eelgrass and Marine Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Mitigation Plan) to achieve no net loss in eelgrass function should be developed. The CEMP provides options for mitigation, including (1) comprehensive management plans (CMPs), (2) in -kind mitigation, (3) mitigation banks and in -lieu -fee programs, and (4) out -of -kind mitigation. CMPs protect eelgrass resources within the context of broader ecosystem needs and management objectives (NOAA Fisheries 2014). CMPs may be employed when a project will result in incremental but recurrent impacts to a small portion of local eelgrass populations through time (e.g., lagoon mouth maintenance dredging, maintenance dredging of channels and slips within established marinas, etc.). Existing CMPs are considered to provide adequate population - level and local resource distribution protections to eelgrass, such as the City of Newport Beach Eelgrass Protection Mitigation Plan for Shallow Water in Lower Newport Bay: An Ecosystem Based Management Plan.

2.2 State Laws and Regulations

2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires identification of a project's potentially significant impacts on biological resources and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant impacts. The CEQA Guidelines define endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose "survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors" (14 CCR 15380[b][1)]). A rare animal or plant is defined in the CEQA Guidelines as a species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, exists "in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-430

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS its environment worsens; or ... [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered 'threatened' as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act" (14 CCR 15380[b][2]). Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guideline 15380(c).

CEQA also requires identification of a project's potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes) and other sensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered, rare, and threatened species.

2.2.1 California Coastal Act
In 1972, voters concerned about coastal development, including impacts to public access and coastal resources, passed the California Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative (Proposition 20), in turn creating CCC. This initiative declared the California Coastal Zone (Coastal Zone) as a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all people and existing as a delicately balanced ecosystem, requiring conservation and protection of remaining natural and scenic resources for the Coastal Zone. As a result, it was determined that, to promote public safety, health, and welfare and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it was necessary to preserve the ecological balance of the Coastal Zone and prevent its further deterioration and destruction. The initiative also determined that it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect, and where possible restore the resources of the Coastal Zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations. In 1976, the California State Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act, which is the primary law governing the decisions of CCC. The California Coastal Act guides new development in an effort to improve public access to coastal areas. The Coastal Zone encompasses 1.5 million acres of land, stretching from 3 miles at sea to an inland boundary that varies from several blocks in urban areas to as many as 5 miles in less developed areas.

The Coastal Zone extends into federal waters under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, covering approximately 1,100 miles of California coastline from Oregon to Mexico, including 287 miles of shoreline surrounding nine offshore islands.

2.3 Regional and Local Plans

2.3.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan
The City of Newport Beach General Plan is intended to provide protection and preservation for existing neighborhoods. The subjects of the Conservation and Open Space Element have been merged into the Natural Resources Element Chapter 10. The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses: water supply (as a resource) and water quality (includes bay and ocean quality, and potable drinking water), air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy (City of Newport Beach 2006).

Goal NR 11: Protection of environmental resources in Newport Harbor while preserving and enhancing public recreational boating activities.

Policies:

DUDEK
14299.03 4
MAY 2023
15-431

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS NR 11.1 Harbor Area Management Plan. Develop a Harbor Area Management Plan that will provide a comprehensive approach to the management of the resources of Newport Bay, such as protection of eelgrass and other natural resources, dredging for navigation, and continued use of private piers.

NR 11.2 Joint City/County Study. Prepare and fund a joint City/County study that would (a) identify the respective services provided by the City and County in Newport Harbor, (b) determine the cost of these services, (c) identify opportunities if any, for the City and County to realign resources to provide services at reduced costs, (d) identify the sources of revenue available to defray the cost of those services, and (e) identify potential feasible methods of providing those services other tan with public agency personnel such as volunteers.

NR 11.3 Eelgrass Protection. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where feasible.

NR 11.4 Interagency Coordination on Establishing Eelgrass Restoration Sites. Cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites.

NR 11.5 Eelgrass Mitigation. Allow successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve as mitigation sites for City projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects.

2.3.2 City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program
This document establishes the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach, prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (City of Newport 2018). The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch.

Policies:

Biological Resources

4.1.4-1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem.

4.1.4-2. Implement eelgrass restoration and enhancement programs in Newport Harbor.

4.1.4-3. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass.

4.1.4-4. Provide for the protection of eelgrass meadows and mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in a comprehensive harbor area management plan for Newport Bay.

DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-432

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.1.4-5. Where applicable require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to be conducted as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols.

Eelgrass Protection and Restoration

4.2.5-1. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible.

4.2.5-2. Continue to cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites.

4.2.5-3. Conduct studies to establish an eelgrass acreage baseline for Newport Harbor based on the distribution, density, and productivity, necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function.

4.2.5-4. Cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service to incorporate a provision into the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy that would allow exemptions to mitigation requirements for harbor maintenance projects for provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained.

4.2.5-5. Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to incorporate the eelgrass acreage baseline exemption provision into the City's Regional General Permit and into any individual property owner's dredging or dock construction permit that qualifies under future applications.

4.2.5-6. Perform periodic surveys of the distribution of eelgrass in Newport Bay in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Services to ensure that the eelgrass baseline is maintained.

4.2.5-7. Cooperate with resource agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of biological, recreational, commercial and aquatic resources of Newport Harbor and to develop a Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) that will maintain all of the intended beneficial uses of the harbor.

2.3.3 Newport Bay Eelgrass Mitigation Plan
The City adopted a Bay -specific eelgrass mitigation plan in 2015. The plan was entitled "Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in Lower Newport Bay: An Ecosystem Based Management Program" (Plan) (City of Newport Beach 2015). The Plan is an outcome of the City of Newport Beach HAMP, as issued in April 2010 and approved by City Council in November 2010 (City of Newport Beach 2010). The HAMP was established to set goals and best management practices (BMPs) in order to ensure a healthy eelgrass population within Lower Newport Bay.

The Plan seeks to protect and promote a long-term sustainable eelgrass population while serving Lower Newport Bay's navigational and recreational beneficial uses. The goal of the Plan is an ecosystem -based approach that works by protecting a sustainable eelgrass population in the Lower Newport Bay and enforcing BMPs that will promote eelgrass growth. Particular attention is placed on maintenance dredging activity associated with minor maintenance dredging under and adjacent to private, public, and commercial docks, floats, and piers currently authorized under the City's RGP 54 from USACE, RWQCB, and CCC. The Plan is an integral component of the authorized RGP 54. Exceptions include demolition, repair, and in -kind replacement of docks (including piers, gangways, floats, and piles), bulkheads, and piles with similar structures that are excluded from the current approved RGP 54 program. Eelgrass impacts as a result of beach replenishment or disposal of dredged material in DUDEK
14299.03 6
MAY 2023
15-433

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS front of an existing bulkhead are not covered. The California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy governs all other activities that affect eelgrass.
3 Impact Analysis
The proposed "pilot" project reconfigures 55 moorings in Mooring Field C in the southwest portion of lower Newport Bay. Eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. pacific) is not currently present in Mooring Field C and this pilot project is not expected to directly or indirectly impact eelgrass based on 2022 eelgrass surveys and implementation of recommended measures (See Table 1 and Section 4.1 below). Eelgrass distribution has increased considerably in Newport Bay since the 2009-2010 survey, and it continued to expand throughout Newport Bay between 2020 and 2022 and in "regions" adjacent to Mooring Field C (MTS and CRM 2023). Specifically, there are three eelgrass "regions" adjacent to Mooring Field C: Region 3 (East Balboa Peninsula), 6 (Bay Island), and Region 23 (Deep Water Eelgrass Habitat). Region 3 is to the south/southwest of Mooring Field C and increased by 2.52 acres between 2020 and 2022. Region 6 is to the north/northeast of Mooring Field C and increased by 0.28 acre between 2020 and 2022; and Region 23 is to the southwest of Mooring Field C and did not increase in acreage but is a considerable eelgrass bed (62.20 acres) (MTS and CRM 2023). Additionally, Dudek used NOAA Fisheries' (2014) eelgrass habitat definition and included a 5-meter buffer around the mooring locations in the impact analysis to account for the potential expansion of eelgrass from these regions towards Mooring Field C. Currently, Mooring Field C avoids eelgrass beds by 5-meters or more.

Figure 1. Impacts to Eelgrass from the Mooring Fields Optimization Initiative Note: 1 Moorings currently exist within the mooring field. 2 2022 Eelgrass Survey (MTS and CRM 2023)
4 Conclusion
Direct and indirect impacts are unlikely to occur from implementation of the proposed "pilot" mooring project in Mooring Field C. The distance of the eelgrass beds from Mooring Field C, while in close proximity, have able distance to avoid direct impacts even if the eelgrass beds expand in 2023. However, while it is unlikely that the eelgrass beds of the adjacent regions will expand within the 2023 growing season into Mooring Field C, pre -construction surveys are recommended per NOAA Fisheries guideline on potential project impacts to eelgrass or "implementation guidelines for California" (2014). Additionally, Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permitting under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer for in water projects within the bay typically require a pre - construction survey for eelgrass. Turbidity poses the primarily indirect impact to neighboring eelgrass beds. The techniques employed for removal of the existing moorings and installation of the new moorings will determine the level of protection between the moorings and eelgrass beds or regions. Please refer to Section 4.1 for recommended measures to avoid potential impacts to eelgrass within Newport Bay.

DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-434

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.1 Recommended Measures
Eelgrass Survey. A pre -construction survey of Mooring Field C including a buffer to account for indirect impacts (i.e., action area) and an appropriate reference site(s) should be completed within 60 days before start of construction.

Copies of all surveys should be provided to the lead federal agency, NOAA Fisheries, USACE, and other interested regulatory and/or resource agencies within 30 days of completing the survey. The recommended timing of surveys is intended to minimize changes in eelgrass habitat distribution and abundance during the period between survey completion and construction initiation and completion. This survey must include both aerial and density characterization of the beds. If eelgrass is found during the pre -construction survey, a post -construction survey must be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days following project completion to quantify any unanticipated losses to eelgrass habitat. Impacts must then be determined from a comparison of pre- and post- construction survey results. Impacts to eelgrass, if any, must be mitigated through conformance with the Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan (City of Newport Beach 2015), which defines the mitigation ratio and other requirements to achieve mitigation for significant eelgrass impacts.

Turbidity. Where proposed turbidity generating activities must occur in proximity to eelgrass and increased turbidity will occur at a magnitude and duration that may affect eelgrass habitat, measures to control turbidity levels should be employed when practical considering physical and biological constraints and impacts. Measures may include the use of turbidity curtains where appropriate and feasible, and the use of low impact equipment and methods.

Turbidity curtains must be kept a minimum of 30 feet away from eelgrass beds in order to prevent damage to eelgrass beds from curtain drag or movement.
4 References
City of Newport Beach. 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Accessed April 2023. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/General Plan/COMPLETE FEB 2019/General Plan 2006 Com plete.pdf
City of Newport Beach. 2010. Harbor Area Management Plan. Prepared for: Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach. p. 99.

City of Newport Beach. 2015. Eelgrass Protection and Mitigation Plan for Shallow Waters in Lower Newport Bay. An Ecosystem Based Management Program. Accessed April 2023. https://newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=21830#:-:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this% 20docu ment%20is%20to%20describe,dredging%20activities%20typica I ly%20undertaken%20by%20ind iv idual%20property%20owners.

City of Newport Beach. 2018. Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. Accessed April 2023. https://www.newi)ortbeachca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning division/genera I-plan-codes-and-regulations/local-coastal-program City of Newport Beach. 2023. Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Withing the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests. City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission Staff Report. March 8, 2023.

Marine Taxonomic Services Ltd. (MTS) and Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM). 2023. 2022 Eelgrass Monitoring in Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The City of Newport Beach. February 24, 2023. Revised April 7, 2023. Accessed April 2023.

DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-435

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocumentZ73188/638167971564230000 NOAA Fisheries. 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service's California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines. NMFS, West Coast Region. October 2014. Accessed April 2023. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/cemp oct 2014 final.pdf DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-436

55 f -7 dw
%F
41,5,
V
A. . . . . - - - - -
LN
Newport
Bay
H 0
Anchorage
F
c t
Project �,
)73
B
.1
011519

Notice of Exemption

ATTACHMENT H
Appendix E
Print Form
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County Clerk
County of: Orange
Public Services Division
Santa Ana, CA 92702
From: (Public Agency): City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Project Title: Moorings "C" Field Pilot Project
Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach
(Address)
Project Location - Specific:

Off -shore within Newport Harbor, Mooring C Field, 5.5 acres Project Location - City:

Newport Beach
Project Location - County: Orange
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:

The Field C Pilot mooring reconfiguration project (project) proposes to replace the existing single -row mooring system within the Mooring "C" Field with a double -row mooring system to improve navigation safety and optimize space within the mooring field. During the process, one or two rows may be initially reconfigured. This would allow for testing of the new layout and for making any necessary adjustments. There will be follow-up on the reconfiguration, including regular inspections from harbor patrol boats as well as interviews with affected permittees and other stakeholders. The relocation of moorings and permittees for the first one or two rows is estimated to take two weeks. Completing the reconfiguration for the rest of C Field is estimated to take 30 days.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Newport Beach Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Newport Beach Exempt Status: (check one):
❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
❑ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
❑ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number:
❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:

Class 2
The project would replace the existing single -row mooring system within the "C" Field with a double -row system as a pilot program to test the safety and viability of the double -row system within Newport Harbor. The new mooring system would be in the same location and serve the same purpose as the one being replaced. The reconfiguration would result in a negligible increase in capacity of the mooring field. The use of a Categorical Exemption is precluded where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (Section 15300.2 (c)). The project is within an area where eelgrass is known to be present. As such, an eelgrass impact assessment was conducted to show that the project would not have effects on eelgrass habitat (Attachment A). No other exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption were determined to be applicable.

Lead Agency
Contact Person: Jim Campbell Area Code/Telephone/Extension: 949-644-3210 If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature:

Date:

Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Title:

Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at CPR:

Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.

Revised 2011
15-438

O��gWPpRb ATTACHMENT I
City of Newport Beach

BUDGET AMENDMENT
2022-23 BA#:23-073
Department: Harbor
ONETIME: ❑✓ ves ❑ No
Requestor: Paul Blank
Approvals
❑ CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ONLY
Finance Director: Date 511y .
❑� COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED City Clerk: Date
EXPLANATION FOR REQUEST:

To increase appropriation expenditures to the Harbor Department, Professional services account for consulting services, subject ❑ from existing budget appropriations pilot project, and for post -pilot consulting services. These services will improve navigation safety, allow additional moorings ❑ from additional estimated revenues within the fields and mooring size exchange requests under Commission Objective 2.3. ❑� from unappropriated fund balance

REVENUES
Fund #
Org
Object
Project Description
Increase or (Decrease) $
100
10099
691010

INTERFUND TRANSFERS - TRANSFER IN GENERAL FUND
410,000.00
Subtotal [$ 410,000.00

EXPENDITURES
Fund #
Org
Object
Project Description
Increase or (Decrease) $
010
01099
991100
GENERAL FUND INTERFUND TRANSFR - TRANSFER OUT TIDELAND FUND 410,000.00 100
10045451
811008

HARBOR DEPARTMENT- SERVICES PROFESSIONAL
410,000.00
Subtotal $ - 820 000.00

FUND BALANCE
Fund #
Object
Description
Increase or (Decrease) $
010
300000

GENERAL FUND - FUND BALANCE CONTROL
(410,000.00)
100
300000

TIDE & SUBMERGED LANDS FUND - FUND BALANCE CONTROL
Subtotal) $ (410,000.00)
Fund Balance Change Required
15-439

ATTACHMENT J
From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:36 PM
Attachments: imaae001.onna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Craig Atkins
Sent: May 15, 2023 7:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Newport Beach City Council,
I hope this email finds you in good health and high spirits. As a resident and waterfront property owner in Newport Beach, I write to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed initiative to improve the organization and consistency of boats in the mooring fields, thereby enhancing navigation and safety within our beloved harbor.

I have been fortunate enough to enjoy the recreational activities and breathtaking views that our beautiful harbor offers for many years. As an owner of several boats, an avid paddleboarder, and a fervent supporter of waterfront activities, I have personally witnessed the challenges and risks associated with the current arrangements of boats in the mooring fields.

My primary concern revolves around the lack of organization and consistency in the placement of boats, which often leads to congested mooring fields. This congestion makes navigating through the fields a perilous task, especially for those of us who have children frequently engaged in small craft boating and paddleboarding. Their safety is of utmost importance to me and my neighbors. It becomes increasingly worrisome when there is little room to maneuver through the crowded mooring fields and into the main channels.

I wholeheartedly believe that the proposed project, aimed at opening up the waterways between 15-440

the shoreline and the boats in the mooring fields, is a remarkable initiative that will significantly improve safety, navigation, and the overall aesthetic appeal of our harbor for years to come. By implementing a more organized and consistent layout, we can create a more secure environment for boaters, paddleboarders, and other water enthusiasts.

Enhancing safety measures and streamlining navigation will not only protect our residents and visitors but also contribute to the continued growth and success of our vibrant waterfront community. A well -organized harbor with clear pathways will undoubtedly encourage more individuals to engage in water -related activities, bolstering tourism, local businesses, and the overall enjoyment of our precious natural resources.

I firmly believe that investing in this project is a worthwhile endeavor that will yield long-term benefits for the entire Newport Beach community. I urge you to prioritize and support this initiative, ensuring that our harbor remains a safe and accessible haven for all.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I extend my gratitude for your dedicated service to our city. Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or assistance regarding this project.

Sincerely,
Craig Atkins
Newport Beach Resident and Waterfront Property Owner
This message and any attached documents may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. You also may not forward this email without express permission. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. 15-441

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initative
Date: May 15, 2023 3:33:27 PM
Attachments: imacie001.ma
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: charlene murphy
Sent: May 15, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Harbor Commission ; Dept - City Council

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the : Harbor Commission & City Council
Regarding the proposed Mooring Field Open Water Initiative - We support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Regards,
Rick & Charlene Murphy
Vista Dr
Newport Beach
15-442

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:56 PM
Attachments: image001.onng
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Keith Dawson
Sent: May 15, 2023 11:08 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council:

Please add my name to the long list of supporters of the Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative.

Who was it that said "organization is the key to success"? Whoever it was ... was undoubtedly both organized and successful.

Think of Fashion Island or the Big Corona parking lot without marked parking spaces — utter chaos! My parent's sailboats were moored off Linda Isle for many years. As I oared my way back and forth to my parent's boat more times than I can count, I often wondered what rhyme or reason dictated where the mooring cans were anchored. Over time, many of the cans have migrated to random locations as a result of high winds or storms - some causing navigation challenges for the unwary.

Simply stated, the Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative makes good common sense and is long overdue.

Organizing the mooring fields will provide for better navigation, particularly at night when the cans 15-443

are difficult to see.

Organizing the mooring fields will provide greater space and maneuverability between the rows of moorings and more space between moorings in the same row.

With organization comes efficiency. The new plan offers both efficiency in numbers and efficiency in space.

It's time to "square -away" our mooring fields so that they are "shipshape" like the rest of our beautiful harbor!

KEITH DAWSON
949-720-9414
FAX 949-759-9144

THIS E-MAIL TRANSMISSION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE

RECIPIENT AND CONSTITUTE PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY -CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. 15-444

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 12:24:26 PM
Attachments: imaae001.onna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Russ Fuller
Sent: May 13, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Attention Newport Beach City Council,
I am long time resident and frequent user of Newport Beach harbor.

I am a strong believer of Mooring Field Initiative. I believe it will have many benefits for the harbor, residents, and visitors. Better defining the rows and fairways with vastly improve the appearance of the harbor. The wider water ways will add to the enjoyment of all who use the harbor. Additional moorings will improve access for all.

I fully support this initiative and look forward to improvements to harbor I love.

Russ Fuller
Revolution Supply
rfuller(@revolutionsupplv.com
2901 W MacArthur Blvd #111
Santa Ana, CA 92704
15-445

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:06 PM
Attachments: NBHC Mooring Field Ooen Water Initiative Summarv.odf image001.pnno
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
0 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Dennis Durgan
Sent: May 14, 2023 5:56 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Newport Beach City Council & Harbor Commission,
As a 62 year resident of Newport Beach, former Harbor Master & current Realtor selling high end properties around our wonderful harbor, I am fully behind what the Harbor Commission has recommended to the City Council with regard to the Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. The Harbor Commission identified the problems associated with the current Mooring Fields, went to work to come up with very workable solutions to correct the issues, held numerous public meeting to gather input and put together an outstanding Initiative to present for approval from the Harbor Commissioner's. They in turn are asking the City Council to approve their hard work to make Newport Harbor a safer place to enjoy by all that view and enjoy the harbor! In closing, this is a Home Run for the Harbor and I am 100% behind this Initiative and hope that you all agree with me and will vote to pass this Initiative.

Thank you for your time & consideration!
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Durgan
15-446

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 2:18:08 PM
Attachments: imaae001.mo
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: James A. Clarke
Sent: May 15, 2023 2:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
"I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative" James A. Clarke
127 Harbor Island Rd.

Newport Beach, CA 92660
Email: Jim&SunburstCapital.com
Phone: 949.566.9888 Ext.1
Mobile: 619.318.0900
15-447

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 3:00:26 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ma
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: [email protected]
Sent: May 15, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Members: I support the Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. I am a very longtime resident of Balboa Peninsula, and reside at 1210 East Balboa Blvd. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Peter C. Pallette
15-448

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 3:03:45 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ma
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Scott McFetters
Sent: May 15, 2023 3:00 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I hope all is well! I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Open Water Initiative for multiple reasons.

Thank you,
Scott McFetters
Newport Island
15-449

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Fields
Date: May 15, 2023 1:34:20 PM
Attachments: imaae001.onna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Dan Rotter
Sent: May 15, 2023 1:23 PM
To: [email protected]; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Fields
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I have lived in Newport Beach for over 20 years. Over the years I have owed an 44 foot Regal express cruiser, several Duffys, and paddle boards. I fully support the Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration. There have been many times that I have had to navigate through various parts of the mooring fields having to dodge buoys and lines so they do not get caught in my prop. I currently own a Duffy and it would be nice to not have to dodge buoys and lines while passing through the mooring filed. The initiative would improve the overall utilization of the harbor's mooring fields and the look of the fields. As a Newport Beach resident and boat owner I would ask that this initiative be passed and implemented.

Regards,
Dan Rotter
949.233.4734
Danrotterl(@outlook.com
15-450

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: New Mooring Design and Open Water Initiative Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:45 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: [email protected]
Sent: May 15, 2023 9:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: New Mooring Design and Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

This email is to let you know we fully support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Design and Open Water Initiative.

Thank you.

Edward and Barbara Lyon
427 San Bernardino Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
val-Ivon(@sbcelobal.net
949.351.4300 (m)
15-451

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Date: May 15, 2023 3:01:16 PM
Attachments: imaae001.mo
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Jim Roy
Sent: May 15, 2023 2:40 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a Newport Beach home owner for 10 years. During this time I have enjoyed many harbor cruises with family and friends aboard my 30' power boat. I support this initiative for the following reasons:

1. The existing zig zag pattern the boats are moored in creates very narrow sections in many of the isles due to different boat lengths.

2. With wider isles it would be much more visible and safer to travel thru, prevent running over a paddle boarder moving between boats.

3. My grandkids love seeing the seals laying on the backs of the boats but the current condition makes it stressful to enjoy this.

Thank you,
Jim Roy
4419 W. PCH
Newport Beach
15-452

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Date: May 15, 2023 12:24:58 PM
Attachments: imaae001.pna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
0 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Jerry Conrad
Sent: May 14, 2023 9:00 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Newport Beach Harbor Commission
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To whom it may concern,
My name is Jerry Conrad and I have been a resident of
Newport Beach since 1986. 1 have lived most of that time as a bay front homeowner. I am an active boater and have always had a boat and own a mooring in Avalon.
also am a developer and have participated in the
rejuvenation of Lido Village. I am the owner of 3388 Via Lido, the five -story mixed use waterfront mid -rise, which previously was an abandoned derelict eye sore. Today it is the entrance to lido village and casts a great impression on the village. 15-453

am writing to you to request you give serious consideration to the request lodged, "Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Innitative". I support the initiative and believe it to be in the best interest of our community.

Jerry Conrad
Cox*]
Bayfront Holding
15-454

From:

Rieff, Kim
To:

Rieff, Kim
Subject:

FW: Open water initiative
Date:

May 16, 2023 9:44:14 AM
-----Original Message -----
From: Ali Jahangiri
Sent: May 13, 2023 10:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Open water initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear harbor commission
I live at 222 eveningstar lane in Dover shores on the harbor and I own a mooring in the harbor. I think it's smart to create safety in the mooring field and create more room for me to be able to park my boat. Organization is lacking out there. Thanks for doing this.

Best regards
Ali Jahangiri
949 310 0000 cell
15-455

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:27 PM
Attachments: Letter to NB City Council.odf
image001.pnno
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
0 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Ryan Knott
Sent: May 15, 2023 6:27 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Newport Beach City Council and Harbor Commission:

Please see the attached letter in regards to the aforementioned reference.

Thank you.

Ryan R. Knott
SGB Holdings, LLC
510 31st Street
Suite G
Newport Beach I CA 192663
(949) 910-1939 1 Cell
This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, or an intended recipient's authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail message and any attachments from your computer system. 15-456

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Open Water Initiative
Date: May 15, 2023 12:24:39 PM
Attachments: innacie001.ma
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Thomas Horton
Sent: May 13, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: RE: Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My Name is Thomas Horton. I live on the water here in Newport Beach, 3808 Channel Place.

I've been a local here for over 15 years and have always been discouraged by the mooring layout of our beautiful Harbor, which I feel suffers from gross functional obsolescence. I'm often on the water as I own a boat, surf ski, kayaks and paddleboards. My main concerns are:

Safety for Boating
I can't tell you how many times friends and even I have gotten hung up on chains/buoyes due to the sloppy and 'just enough open' space between boats to invite a boater to traverse between moored boats. This not only causes safety issues, but takes up local resources in order to save these stranded boats and duffies.

Safety for Children:

It's also very obvious that when children are enjoying the bay in their sailboats, there simply isn't enough open space to safely do so, especially with other boat traffic. Our current harbor is ample large enough to accommodate this activity om a safe manner, it's just currently a very poor layout.
15-457

There was obviously very little 'engineered' thought that went into the way things are laid out given the space. I'm from San Diego originally and if you look at their harbor design, you will find that the mooring fields are compact and efficiently laid out, enabling much larger channels and open space. Although the safety and enjoyment of the people, as well as the liability of the City for these problems are paramount, the actual harbor aesthetics would be much better with what looks to be a well thought out re -organization of the Open Water Initiative. 1 100% support the Initiative and believe the local's of Newport Beach, as well as visitors who help make our local economy hum, deserve better.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thomas Horton
Newport Beach Citizen/Constituent
(949) 307-1011
15-458

From:

Blank, Paul
To:

DDe t - City Clerk
Subject:

FW: Support for Better Navigation and Safety in Newport Beach Mooring Fields Date:

May 15, 2023 3:03:01 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.Dna
Importance:

High
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
0 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Alex Dastmalchi I VITASIGNS
Sent: May 15, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Cc: Alex Dastmalchi I VITASIGNS
Subject: Support for Better Navigation and Safety in Newport Beach Mooring Fields Importance: High
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Newport Beach City Council,
My name is Alex Dastmalchi, and I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the initiative aimed at improving navigation and safety within the mooring fields of Newport Beach. As an avid boater and a concerned member of the community, I believe that implementing the proposed changes will not only enhance the overall aesthetics of the mooring fields but also significantly contribute to the safety and accessibility of our beloved Newport Harbor.

I would like to emphasize my full support for the following aspects of the initiative:

Clearly Defined Rows and Fairways to Improve Navigation and Safety:

The prior policy guidelines have led to a disorganized and crowded space inside the mooring fields, hampering safe navigation. Establishing clear rows and fairways will not only address the issue of maneuverability but also enhance the overall safety of the harbor.

Improved Optimization of Space Within the Mooring Fields:

By rearranging the current mooring fields to accommodate boats of similar lengths in the new 15-459

double row configuration, we can effectively reduce the mooring footprint. This will create more open water space providing a noticeable increase the waterways between shoreline and boats and in the main channels adjacent to the mooring fields. This can only result in improved safety and navigation benefitting the entire boating community.

Additional City Moorings Within the Current Mooring Fields:

The City of Newport Beach has no long-term moorings to provide the public with equal access to public tidelands. If I wanted a mooring for my boat, it would cost me over $50,000 if a private party decided to transfer his or her permit to me. That is not fair. The few additional moorings this initiative offers will improve public access to public tidelands for both residents and non-residents of Newport Beach.

Create Wider and Well-defined Fairways:

The proposed design will provide much wider fairways, ensuring safer navigation for various mariners and watercraft such as Duffy boats, young sailors, paddle boarders, and other human -powered craft. Often Duffy boats and other craft become tangled in mooring lines. This is because there is no clear path through most fairways in the mooring fields and there is no guideline on where or when moorings have spreader lines floating in the water. The new plan addresses these problems.

Increased Spacing Between Moorings in The Same Row:

The new design shows spacing between boats in the same row to be double what it is currently in many places. This adjustment will contribute to a more enjoyable boating experience and reduce the risk of accidents.

Improved Views from the Shoreline:

Currently, the views of the harbor (open water) from the shoreline in front of a mooring field are obstructed if not altogether blocked by a disarray of boats. The proposed double row design will allow for unobstructed views from the shoreline, providing residents and visitors with the opportunity to appreciate the beauty of the harbor.

Double Row Moorings Provide Safer Access:

I have heard some mooring permit holders complain about being moved to a row of proper size to match the length of their boat and how double rows will be unsafe. Don't be fooled. On average, the double row design provides more overall room to navigate on and off a mooring than exists today. I believe that implementing these improvements in the mooring fields of Newport Beach will have numerous benefits for the entire community. Not only will it enhance safety and navigation, but it will also contribute to the aesthetic appeal of our harbor, benefitting residents and visitors alike.

I would like to express my gratitude for the City Council's dedication to addressing these issues and making our mooring fields safer and more accessible. Your efforts to improve Newport Beach and Newport Harbor are greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to seeing positive changes in our mooring 15-460

fields that will undoubtedly elevate the boating experience and enhance the beauty of our beloved Newport Harbor.

Alex Dastmalchi
Founder & CEO
Vitasigns LLC
4490 Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92660
Cell: (949) 390-3504
Confidentiality Warning: The information contained in this email message may contain Protected Health Information that is privileged and confidential information intended only for the review and used by the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information may be a violation of Federal Law (HIPAA) and will be reported as such. 15-461

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Support for NBHC Mooring Field
Date: May 15, 2023 12:25:16 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ma
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Donald Damask
Sent: May 14, 2023 6:22 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Support for NBHC Mooring Field
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the attention of the City Council and Harbor Commission:

As 11 year residents of Lido Island my husband and I have often enjoyed many a boat and duffy ride in our beautiful harbor, as well as admired the scenery on our daily walks around Lido. We agree that a simple reorganization of the mooring field is long past due. It has always seemed like a free for all in the harbor: confusing, makeshift and unorganized.

Better defined rows, as any city planning would agree, will improve navigation, safety and efficiency. The beauty of our harbor, admired by all, will be greatly improved.. so it may rival the great harbors of the Mediterranean in Instagram-able photos, especially taken by drones! A neat well presented harbor will enhance the harbors value and prestige, as well as complement the impressive real estate on its shores.

We support the initiative and urge you to do the same.

Joan & Donald Damask
108C via Antibes
Newport Beach, CA 92663
15-462

DocuSign Envelope ID: 456A260A-3960-488D-ACB2-05E4CAA9C866 K
May 14, 2023
Via Email: citycounciWnewportbeachca.gov
HarborCommission(&newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration Dear Newport Beach City Council:

I am writing with respect to the aforementioned reference.

We are a Newport Beach family and waterfront property residents who are owners of several boats, paddleboards, prone paddleboards, and, we enjoy gathering on our patio to enjoy the waterfront scenery and all that bayfront living affords one.

Through the years, my sons and I have witnessed and assisted many boaters (locals and visitors alike) who have become ensnared in more than one mooring field, not only in front of our home, but in other locations throughout the harbor as well. Like many others in Newport Beach, we feel that the current configuration and disarray of the mooring fields in some areas of the harbor are not only an eye sore but makes for navigation through the fields dangerous in some instances. This is especially true with the many regattas held in the harbor wherein inexperienced boaters force racers, or themselves, or both parties, into a particular mooring field only to find themselves entangled in mooring lines or bumping off moorings damaging personal and city property as they had to make incorrect maneuvering decisions wherein the outcome did not bode well for one or more party.

Newport Harbor is more congested than ever and a thoughtful configuration of the harbor's moorings is something that should be looked at in great detail to accommodate such congestion and changes that the harbor has seen.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,
S
ocuSignne'd^by:

A4i
Ryan R. Knott
701 Lido Park Drive I Newport Beach I CA 192663
15-463

Newport Beach Harbor Commission
Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Cl Fo4�`P
Your Support Will Help Keep Newport Harbor Safe for
Our Young Sailors in Sailing School, Paddleboarders, Mariners and All of Us Fortunate and Able to Enjoy Our Beautiful Harbor The Benefits of a Simple Reorganization of Mooring Fields • Better Defined Rows and Fairways To Improve Navigation and Safety — For decades there has been no policy or guidelines to keep the mooring fields organized. As a result, today the mooring fields to many onlookers are an eye sore that resemble a crowded parking lot but more importantly provide limited maneuverability within the mooring fields for safe navigation.
• Improved Optimization Of Space Within The Mooring Fields — Simply organizing the current mooring fields in a more efficient design that group boats of equal lengths in some rows will reduce the mooring footprint. "Open Water Space" is an asset of Newport Harbor. The new design will increase the waterways between shorelines and boats in the mooring fields and increase the waterways in the main channels adjacent to the mooring fields.
• Additional City Moorings Within The Current Mooring Fields— The efficiency of the new design will allow the City of Newport Beach to add a small number of new moorings. The new moorings will provide an improved opportunity to residents of Newport Beach and the general public to have access to mooring a boat over public tidelands, which is currently limited as the City has no new mooring permits available for longer -term rentals. • Create Wider and Well-defined Fairways — The new mooring design will result in much wider fairways overall to safely navigate through by Duffy boats, young sailors, poddleboorders and other human powered craft.

Current fairway widths average less than 40' and in many cases are 25' or less. The efficiency of the new design results in fairways that will be 60' — 90' wide. • Increased Spacing Between Moorings in The Same Row — The new design will increase the amount of water space between boats in the some row to reduce congestion creating a more open feel and safer distance between boats.
• Improved Views From the Shoreline —The new design will allow for an unobstructed view from the shoreline through the mooring field and into open water of the harbor in many locations. Current visibility is blocked in many locations by the disarray and almost wall-like view created by boats of different sizes scattered around without being positioned in well defined rows.

Please Support Via Email To:
[email protected]
[email protected]
15-464

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 10:39:33 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Marie Bartling
Sent: May 15, 2023 5:44 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Newport Beach City Council and Harbor Commission,
I have been a long time resident in Newport Beach and own a home on the water in Newport. I support the Mooring Field Open Water Initiative which will help keep our harbor safer for all who use it. I support the:

Better defined rows and fairways
Optimization of space within the mooring fields
Additional City moorings within the current mooring fields Creation of wider and well-defined fairways
Increased spacing between moorings in the same row and the Improved views from the shoreline.

Thank you in advance for all your hard work in keeping our Newport harbor safe and so beautiful.

Marie Bartling
633 Lido Park Dr. #E2
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 433-8081
15-465

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 10:43:07 AM
Attachments: imaae001.Dna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Darnell, Hank
Sent: May 15, 2023 5:53 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative.

Hank Darnell
R.E. License #01269561 (CA)
Senior Vice President
IA
T 562-948-4316
C 949-933-8363
HDarnell(@maiesticrealtv.com
www.MaiesticRealtv.com
Follow us
R.E. License #00255328
Majestic Realty Co. 1 13191 Crossroads Parkway North, 6th Floor, City of Industry, CA, 91746 LOS ANGELES • ATLANTA AUSTIN • BETHLEHEM DALLAS / FT. WORTH DENVER • LAREDO LAS VEGAS • PHOENIX PORTLAND
15-466

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 10:50:55 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Mike Nash
Sent: May 15, 2023 6:34 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
"I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative" Thank you in advance and also for your continued support of Newport Harbor Foundation.

Mike Nash
mike&revi sitmarketing. com
714-501-3494
www.revisitwineco.com
0 15-467

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration Date: May 16, 2023 10:37:18 AM
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
-----Original Message -----
From: Tom Buckingham
Sent: May 15, 2023 5:02 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I'm a long-time resident of NB, waterfront owner, a boater, and just enjoy the views, etc.

I'm very much in favor of this initiative, and strongly support it! So please vote yes, and keep Newport Beach the place where everyone wants to live, safe And pristine! Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas Buckingham
Sent from my iPad
15-468

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: New mooring field configurations
Date: May 16, 2023 11:09:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: [email protected]
Sent: May 16, 2023 7:41 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: New mooring field configurations
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To All:

We support the new recommendations to the mooring fields, it will be a great addition to the safety factor for all that use our beautiful Newport Bay
Thankyou
Dave New, President
Basin Marine, Inc. Since 1939
15-469

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration Date: May 16, 2023 10:38:57 AM
Attachments: innaae001.Dna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Andrew Spath
Sent: May 15, 2023 5:41 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a resident of 3506 Marcus Ave. a waterfront home with mooring adjacent to my property. I have my boat currently on a mooring in Newport harbor as well. I want to email my strong support for the Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration. We need a better system here in our beautiful bay.

Andrew Spath, DDS
2121 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 290
Newport Beach, CA 92625
949.612.2356 P
949.544.5207 F
www.spathdentistry.com
15-470

NOTICE:***The information in this email may contain confidential health information that is privileged and legally protected from disclosure by federal law, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, disclosing, distributing, copying, acting upon or otherwise using the information contained in this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.***
15-471

From:

Blank, Paul
To:

Dept - City Clerk
Subject:

FW: Open Water Initiative
Date:

May 16, 2023 11:08:12 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.Dng
mage001.pnng
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Tom LeBeau
Sent: May 16, 2023 7:10 AM
To: Beer, Ira ; Scott Cunningham ; Blank,
Paul
Subject: Re: Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see the below letter of support for the Open Water Initiative. I thought I sent this to the entire HC (but it look like only City Council received it - also got a note back from Mayor Pro Tem). I have forwarded your summary onto a number of our folks, they are aware and should be sending letters of support as of yesterday (Monday) AM.

Thanks for all you all for hard work on the topic (especially you Ira). Together we can help get this over the goal line.

Best, Tom
Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2023, at 2:01 PM, Stapleton, Joe
wrote:

Tom, well said and thanks for reaching out.

Joe
15-472

Stapleton
Council
Member
Office:
(949) 644-
3004
100 Civic
Center Dr
Newport
Beach,
CA 92660
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Newport Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.

From: Tom LeBeau
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Council Members,
My name is Thomas LeBeau, I have lived in Newport Beach for 30 years. In 2014 my wife Kathy and our two children moved into our harbor front home at 1324 E Balboa Blvd and F Street. We are active users of the Harbor and own several boats. I also have operated my business, Accretive Realty Advisors, Inc. here in Newport Beach since August of 2002.

I write today to voice our full support for the Open Water Initiative approved by Harbor Commission, and its subcommittee chaired by Harbor Commissioner Ira Beer. I have attended several Harbor Commission hearings over the past several years where Harbor Commissioner Beer has outlined his well thought our and researched proposal to open up some water in our wonderful public treasure, Newport Harbor. Mr. Beer and the entire Harbor Commission should be applauded for coming up with a great plan! As we understand the plan as implemented will:

1. Open up more water by reducing the mooring fields by approximately 1/3.

2. Open up and widen fairways between mooring rows providing uniform access 15-473

for all water users, not just mooring owners.

3. Add additional City owned moorings in select mooring fields, this will add additional revenue into Tidelands Fund.

4. Reduce chain drag on the bottom of the bay which helps keep our Harbor cleaner and our water clearer by not dragging chain and clouding the water (I am certain there are other benefits which I am overlooking as I write, so please forgive the abbreviated note).

At the onset, my wife and I were a bit concerned that our bayfront view might be impaired. We concluded, after attending several Hearings, if this occurs the benefits of the Open Water Initiative far outweigh any unintended issues. In the end as residents and stakeholders we may all have to give something up, the mooring owners, the bayfront homeowners too, to reap the benefits of the Initiative. We all will get a better more organized Harbor with more open water to navigate. So if our view is slightly impaired from where it is today, we are okay with that given the benefits that the Open Water Initiative will provide for all stakeholders.

I wanted to also add that Mr. Beer has done an absolutely wonderful job and we should all value his hard work and appreciate what his plan will do to enhance the Harbor. This letter represents our sincere interest in and hope that the City Council will approve the Open Water Initiative.

Please certify what the Harbor Commission has approved.

Sincerely,
Tom LeBeau
1324 E. Balboa Blvd
Blue Sky NPB, LLC
Sent from my iPad
15-474

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Strong Support for the Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Date: May 16, 2023 10:52:05 AM
Attachments: imaae001.pna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Vinny Smith
Sent: May 16, 2023 1:20 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Cc: Vinny Smith
Subject: Strong Support for the Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Newport Beach City Council,
I hope this email finds you in good health and spirit. I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. As a long- standing supporter of Newport Beach and a frequent visitor to Newport Harbor, I believe this initiative is a crucial step towards preserving the beauty and optimizing the functionality of our cherished waterways.

For many years, I have been fortunate enough to own bay front and oceanfront properties in Newport Beach. The proximity to the harbor has granted me countless opportunities to partake in various water activities such as boating, swimming, kayaking, and paddleboarding.

These experiences have not only enriched my life but have also provided unforgettable memories with my children.

The Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative holds great promise for enhancing the natural beauty and overall appeal of our beloved harbor. By allowing for 15-475

improved views from the shoreline, this initiative will enable residents and visitors to appreciate the breathtaking vistas that Newport Harbor has to offer. Whether it is the vibrant sunset over the Pacific Ocean or the majestic sight of sailboats gliding through the tranquil waters, unobstructed views will undoubtedly elevate the experience for all.

Furthermore, optimizing the space within the mooring fields is a vital aspect of the initiative.

As the demand for mooring spaces continues to grow, it is imperative that we maximize the efficient use of this limited resource. By implementing the proposed changes, we can effectively accommodate more vessels, reducing the strain on existing mooring fields and ensuring equitable access for all boating enthusiasts.

I firmly believe that by supporting the Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative, we are taking a significant stride towards the long-term preservation and enhancement of Newport Beach's most cherished asset. Our waterfront community thrives on the beauty of our surroundings, and this initiative aligns perfectly with the vision of a sustainable and vibrant future for Newport Harbor.

I kindly request that you carefully consider my endorsement of this important initiative during your decision -making process. Together, we can safeguard the natural wonders of Newport Harbor for generations to come, fostering a sense of pride and unity among residents and visitors alike.

Thank you for your time and dedication to serving our community. I look forward to witnessing the positive impact of the Newport Harbor Commission Mooring Field Open Water Initiative and continuing to enjoy the unparalleled beauty of Newport Beach's waterways.

Sincerely,
Vinny Smith
15-476

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Harbor Moorings
Date: May 16, 2023 11:43:52 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Dana Place
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:25 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Harbor Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Dana Place
Sent from my iPhone
949.386.6595
15-477

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 11:41:53 AM
Attachments: image001.inq
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: David Badajoz
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:08 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a longtime resident of Newport Beach and recreational user of the harbor, I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Cheers,
W
David Badajoz I Creative Direction
949.629.0604 1 dbc_davidbadajoz.com
office: 949.478.4597
P.O. Box 12106, Newport Beach CA 92658
www.davidbadaaoz.com
This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. db, is not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any responsibility 15-478

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 11:42:28 AM
Attachments: imaae001.onna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Mason(0426-TFG), Scott
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:16 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative and request the Council's support of same at the meeting tonight.

Scott Mason, CLUO, ChFC® (CA License No. 0569203)
Financial Advisor of Securian Financial Services, Inc, Securities Dealer, Member FINRA/sIPC & A Registered Investment Advisor
4695 MacArthur CT., #360
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-325-0224
800-453-3437
Fax:949-325-0225
smason&advbenesys.com
Advanced Benefit Systems, an affiliate of Securian, is independently operated.

Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e-mail will not be honored, nor executed.

Thank you.

To learn more about Advanced Benefit Systems please visit our website at htlp:// www.absadvisou.com Jerry Kanter, CLUO, (CA License No. 0659602) and Scott Mason, CLU®, ChFC® (CA License No. 0569203) of Advanced Benefit Systems are Registered Representatives* and Investment Advisor Representatives of *Securian Financial Services, Inc., a Securities Dealer, Member FINRA/SIPC, and Registered Investment Advisors.

Advanced Benefit Systems is located at 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite #360, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Telephone (949) 325-0224, Fax (949) 325-022 5, E-Mail jkanter&advbenesys.com or smason&advbenesys.com.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete this e-mail transmission and notify us by telephone of this error. 15-479

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 11:44:23 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Peter Rooney
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Harbor Commissioners,
I support the Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. Please vote yes on this initiative.

Thank you.

Peter Rooney
15-480

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring realignment
Date: May 16, 2023 11:46:44 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Phillip D Rowe
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring realignment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Pls be advised that I am in complete agreement with the realignment plan proposed.
am a long time resident who, at one time, had a boat on a mooring in the field designed as first. Even then it was congested and difficult.

Overall it should improve our harbor appearance.

Sincerely,
Phillip Rowe
u
15-481

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Moorings
Date: May 16, 2023 11:31:13 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Denis LaBonge
Sent: May 16, 2023 10:11 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the proposed new Harbor open water moorings Initiative.

Denis LaBonge
38 via Coralle
92657
15-482

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Support for Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Initiative Date: May 16, 2023 11:19:34 AM
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
-----Original Message -----
From: Alex Vilgertshofer
Sent: May 16, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Support for Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members & Harbor Commissioner,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. As a resident and harbor enthusiast, I believe this initiative is crucial for the safety and enjoyment of all harbor users.

The benefits of this initiative, such as improved navigation, optimized space, additional moorings, wider fairways, increased spacing between boats, and better shoreline views, are essential for enhancing the harbor experience.

This email is for the Newport Beach City Council, copying the Harbor Commission, to voice my support for the Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration. Please consider my voice and those of many others who value the safety and beauty of our harbor.

Thank you for your dedication to serving our community. Together, we can ensure the long-term health and enjoyment of Newport Harbor.

Warm regards,
Alexander Vilgertshofer
618 Saint James PL
Newport Beach CA, 92663
15-483

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Support for Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Initiative Date: May 16, 2023 11:21:31 AM
Attachments: imaae001.onna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Mike Hannegan
Sent: May 16, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Harbor Commission ; Dept - City Council

Subject: Support for Newport Beach Harbor Commission Mooring Field Initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members and Harbor Commissioner,
I'm writing to express my strong support for the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. As a resident and harbor enthusiast, I believe this initiative is crucial for the safety and enjoyment of all harbor users.

Thank you for your dedication to serving our community. Together, we can ensure the long-term health and enjoyment of Newport Harbor.

Warm regards,
Mike Hannegan
Newport Beach Resident
15-484

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring field open water initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:33:42 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: DOUGLAS RASTELLO
Sent: May 16, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring field open water initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiatives
Regards
Doug Rastello
Waterfront homeowner
Sent from my Whone
15-485

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:23:30 PM
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
-----Original Message -----
From: Richard Beauchamp
Sent: May 16, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative.

Richard Beauchamp
Sent from my iPad
15-486

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:34:12 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: John Francis Kucera
Sent: May 16, 2023 12:27 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good day,
I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative.

It's long over due, and will certainly exponentially improve the current mooring configuration.

Thank you...all the best,
John Francis Kucera
Cell) 858.465.0005
[email protected]
Skype: jfkucera
Dum Spiro spero = "While I breathe, I hope!"
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini
Sent from my Austin Bella iPad Pro
15-487

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dent - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:36:51 PM
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
-----Original Message -----
From: David Clark
Sent: May 16, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am writing to express my support of the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative.

Thank you,
David H. Clark
Sent from my iPad

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative -Agenda May 23, 2023 Date: May 16, 2023 3:38:15 PM
Attachments: imaae001.Dna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: [email protected]
Sent: May 16, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative -Agenda May 23, 2023 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilpersons and Harbor Commissioners:

I was just made aware of this item, and must voice opposition.

While improving the mooring fields in our Harbor is an important item, it appears that there are changes to Title 17 included in this initiative, that notice to all residents and boaters are not fully aware of.

It appears that there was limited outreach to mooring stakeholders, and the addition of language that moorings may be relocated without mooring holders input and cooperation is on the surface a plan for moving or eliminating moorings to improve someone's view. This is demonstrated by the hundreds of pages in opposition from the Harbor Commission Agenda March 8, 2023.

One other large issue I do not see addressed, is the DDT concentration issue. This item will impact dredging maintenance and certainly any relocation of moorings.

As an owner of a commercial marina in our Harbor, and adjacent upland parcel, I urge you to postpone this plan, till all harbor stakeholders are included, and further not to include changes to the Title 17 without full notice and disclosure to harbor residents and boaters.

Please notify residents and boaters in our community, so that they may have a voice in these proposed changes.

Thank you,
Allyson Presta
Dover Landing Marina
15-489

From: Blank, Paul
To: Dept - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Reorganization of mooring fields
Date: May 16, 2023 3:39:12 PM
Attachments: imaae001.pna
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: [email protected]
Sent: May 16, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Fw: Reorganization of mooring fields
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Address correction only
----- Forwarded Message
From: phillyons e.pinecreek.net
To: citycouncil&newportbeachca.gov
Cc: harborcomissioni2newportbeachca.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 01:38:56 PM PDT
Subject: Reorganization of mooring fields
We strongly recommend approval of the proposed Mooring Field reorganization plan.

Phil and Mary Lyons
36 Harbor Island
Newport Beach, CA 92660
15-490

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Full Support of the Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:48:17 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: gparker geneveportfolio.com
Sent: May 16, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Dept - City Council ; Harbor Commission

Subject: Full Support of the Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Attention Newport Beach City Council & Harbor Commission:

As residents of Newport Beach, we are in complete support of the Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
The Many Benefits of a Simple Reorganization of Mooring Fields are as follows:

Better Defined Rows and Fairways To Improve Navigation and Safety Improved Optimization Of Space Within The Mooring Fields.

Additional City Moorings Within The Current Mooring Fields.

Create Wider and Well-defined Fairways.

Increased Spacing Between Moorings in The Same Row.

Improved Views From the Shoreline
We fully Support the Initiative.

Respectfully,
Greg & Karen Parker
3 Canyon Island Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-355-0632
15-491

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
Date: May 16, 2023 3:58:36 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ono
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Robert Steel
Sent: May 16, 2023 3:30 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Fwd: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Robert Steel
Date: Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Mooring Field Open Water Initiative
To: ,
I support the Newport Harbor Commisions Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Having navigated on a lot of deep -keeled sailing yachts in Newport Harbor over 50 years as Kialoa 2, Windward Passage . Sirius.. Ragtime,Warrior to name a few This will be a valuable realignment for all the traffic in the channels Thankyou
Bob Steel
Steel Maritime Inc
15-492

From: Blank, Paul
To: DDe t - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Open water initiative mooring fields.

Date: May 16, 2023 3:48:51 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Paul Blank
Harbormaster
Harbor Department
8 Office: 949-270-8158
1600 W Balboa Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663
From: Devon Kelly
Sent: May 16, 2023 2:44 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Subject: Open water initiative mooring fields.
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Commissioners,
I support the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's
Mooring Field Open Water
Initiative"
Thank you again for your continued support of the Newport Harbor Foundation.

Devon Kelly
Newport Harbor Foundation.

Sent from my iPhone
15-493

Newport Beach City CouncilMay 23, 2023

Newport Beach City Council
May 23, 2023