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 1 of 3)

Q �EwPpRT

CITY OF
s NEWPORT BEACH
`q44:09 City Council Staff Report
May 23, 2023
Agenda Item No. 15
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Paul Blank, City Harbormaster - 949-270-8159,
[email protected]
TITLE: Ordinance No. 2023-8 and Resolution No. 2023-32:

Recommendations Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests
ABSTRACT:

For the City Council's consideration are the authorization of a pilot project related to mooring field optimization and amendments to Title 17 (Harbor Code) related to mooring standards and permits. These efforts implement Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 (Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests). The recommendations and the request for authorization to implement them were approved by the Harbor Commission at its March 8, 2023 meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
a) Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving the Harbor Commission's Recommendations and Approving a Pilot Project to Reconfigure Mooring Field "C" in Newport Harbor, to Improve Navigation Safety and to Optimize Space within the Mooring Field; c) Approve Budget Amendment No. 23-073 appropriating $410,000 to Account No. 10045451-811008 as follows:
• $75,000 for consulting services and permitting with the California Coastal Commission and other agencies
• $275,000 for engineering and construction related to the realignment of the moorings in the subject pilot project
• $60,000 for post -pilot project consulting services for environmental review and permitting necessary to expand the reconfiguration recommendations to the City's remaining mooring fields; and
15-1

Ordinance No. 2023-8 and Resolution No. 2023-32: Recommendations Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests May 23, 2023

Page 2 ends

d) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2023-8, An Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, California, Amending Sections 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) and 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and pass to second reading on June 13, 2023.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Newport Harbor is one of the largest small -craft recreational harbors on the West Coast, as well as a welcoming port to all boaters who cruise the local waters. The harbor also serves as a home to approximately 1,200 moorings, 1,000 residential piers, a dozen commercial marinas, several yacht clubs, scores of charter vessel operations, and various other marine activities.

On July 1, 2017, the City of Newport Beach (City) took over the management of the City's offshore and onshore mooring fields. Of the 1,200 moorings the City manages, approximately 800 of those are offshore moorings in 10 mooring fields. Since taking responsibility for administration of the moorings, the Harbor Department has received requests to extend the permitted length of several offshore moorings. Upon review of previous methods and processes for granting such mooring length extension requests, it was determined that no effective, objective methods existed for review and approval of such requests. The results were a disorganized arrangement of moorings of various sizes throughout the mooring fields. Further, the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) had no process or method for evaluating or granting such size adjustment requests. Harbor staff and the Harbor Commission set about rectifying this situation and while doing so, wrapped the effort into one of the Commission's City Council approved objectives.

Specifically, Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 which reads:

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.

In accordance with the Harbor Commission's charge under Section 713 of the Newport Beach City Charter to advise the City Council on matters relating to the use, control, operation and regulation of Newport Harbor, a subcommittee of the Commission was convened and has worked on recommendations for improvements to the mooring field utilization and a process to accommodate requests from permittees to adjust the size of their permitted moorings. The subcommittee's focus included ensuring safe navigation for all users of the harbor in and around the mooring fields, not just the mooring permittees. Other considerations included:
• Grouping vessels of similar size in the same row for the most efficient use of the limited space within each mooring field and potentially opening space for improved navigation and additional moorings
15-2

Page 3 ends

• Ensuring the fairways between the rows provide for safe navigation even in adverse conditions
• Acknowledging that fairways between rows are considered navigable water for all mariners, not just the mooring permittees
• Providing staff and the community with guidance for mooring extension and size exchange requests
• Maximizing the use of space within the mooring fields in the most effective manner possible
• The opportunity to utilize space freed up by the more efficient arrangement within the fields to increase open water for all harbor users and add a small number of new moorings.

Public hearings on this matter were conducted at the October 12, 2022, November 9, 2022, and March 8, 2023 Harbor Commission meetings. A stakeholder meeting exclusive to this matter and open to the public was conducted on December 14, 2022, during which significant public comment was considered.

The Newport Mooring Association, aided by City staff, conducted a work session specific to this initiative on January 30, 2023. Additional stakeholder meetings were held separately between December 2022 and February 2023 with the Balboa Island Improvement Association, Lido Island Community Association, Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and commercial operators providing services to the public throughout Newport Harbor. All stakeholder meetings resulted in significant feedback and comment that has been considered by the subcommittee and full Harbor Commission.

Mooring Fields Optimization Initiative Proposal
The Mooring Fields Optimization Recommendations were agreed upon by the Harbor Commission at its March 8, 2023 meeting and are now ready for review by the City Council. The Harbor Commission feels strongly that the recommendations support the objective by:
• Allowing more efficient arrangement of the offshore moorings • Opening waterways on three of four sides for each moored vessel • Opening waterways between rows within the mooring fields • Opening waterways on the boundary edges of the mooring fields • Creating a process by which requests for mooring length extensions can be effectively accomplished without compromising the efficient arrangement of moorings within a field
15-3

Page 4 ends

Proposed Code Amendments
As part of the Harbor Commission recommendations, revisions to NBMC Section

17.25.020, Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations are suggested and include clean-up and clarification of requirements for mooring in Newport Harbor.

Revisions to NBMC Section 17.60.040 Mooring Permits are also suggested and include clean-up and clarification of requirements for maintaining a mooring permit in Newport Harbor. Revisions to this section also define the conditions in which a mooring size exchange or extension within a row designated for larger moorings can be requested by a permittee.

The proposed NBMC amendments also include a clean-up provision. In

17.60.040(B)(1)(a), the citation to "subsection (13)(3)(h)" is currently incorrect. Prior amendments resulted in section numbers being changed, and this cross-reference was missed. The correct citation is to "subsection (13)(3)(g)".

The proposed NBMC amendments also include a provision for any new moorings installed or acquired by the City of Newport Beach to be made available to the public pursuant to a revised mooring permit that ensures equal opportunity for new mooring permittees to access public tidelands in Newport Harbor. Any new mooring permits created will not be transferrable. The transferability for all existing mooring permits will remain the same.

The proposal also includes a suggested amendment to the specifications for offshore moorings which define the requirements for spreader lines.

Pilot Program Overview
The pilot project consists of reconfiguring the C Mooring Field to double -row moorings replacing existing single -row moorings and that boats of like sizes be consolidated into the same row(s). To allow for testing of the new layout and for making any necessary adjustments, only one or two rows will be reconfigured initially. The fully completed reconfiguration will include regular inspections from Harbor Department staff 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. Subsequently, the full reconfiguration of the remaining rows in the C Field would take approximately 30 days.

The new double -row mooring system would be in the same location and serve the same purpose as the moorings being replaced. The reconfiguration would result in a meaningful increase in open water space within and immediately adjacent to the mooring field.

The double -row mooring arrangement allows better utilization of the available area within the mooring field, grouping of like -sized boats together, more open space between/abreast of boats moored in the same row, and expanded, more well-defined fairways between the double -rows.
15-4

Page 5 ends

The more efficient use of the space within the mooring field provides mooring permittees with more room to maneuver in three of four directions onto and off their moorings, and other mariners significantly more well-defined pathways through the field, plus allows for the addition of several new moorings. The double -row mooring arrangement will reduce the footprint occupied by boats within the mooring field and increase navigable waterways both within and adjacent to the existing mooring field boundaries.

Coastal Commission Review/Additional Permitting Requirements The California Coastal Act guides development in the Coastal Zone in an effort to improve public access to coastal areas. As the proposed pilot program is in the Coastal Zone and not within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, a Coastal Development Permit will be required. In addition, other agencies including the Regional Water Quality Board, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife may have jurisdiction in this area. Permits from those agencies will be sought for the pilot project.

Eelgrass is not currently present in the C Mooring Field and this pilot project is not expected to directly or indirectly impact eelgrass based on 2022 eelgrass surveys. ak*97 IIIIIII►TiIETO6
The Budget Amendment appropriates $410,000.00 in additional expenditures from the Non -Capital Professional Services account in the Tidelands Operating Fund account no. 10045451-811008, which is funded from a transfer from the General Fund. $60,000 of the total expenditure will be for consultant services to execute the permitting process for this project with the California Coastal Commission and other governing agencies with an interest, which will likely include the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board. It is estimated the permit costs will be another $75,000. Preliminary work indicates the engineering and construction costs to move the moorings in the subject pilot project will cost $250,000.

A 10 percent contingency of $25,000 is also included in the project costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends the City Council find this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15302 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Class 2 consists of the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced.
15-5

Page 6 ends

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 and concurrently a meaningful increase in open water space. Since the project is within an area where eelgrass is known to be present, an eelgrass impact assessment was conducted to show that the project would not have effects on eelgrass habitat (Attachment G). There are no known exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 that would invalidate the use of this exemption. The project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.

Z[9111I:N1►Les
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A
— Resolution No. 2023-32
Attachment B
— Ordinance No. 2023-8
Attachment C
— 17.25.020 strikeout 2.24.2023
Attachment D
— 17.60.040 strikeout 2.24.2023
Attachment E
— Mooring Field Objective 2.3 Presentation Slides
Attachment F
— Feedback Received from 11.3.2022 thru 5.1.2023
Attachment G
— May 4, 2023, Eelgrass Impact Analysis (Dudek report — updated) Attachment H
— Notice of Exemption
Attachment I —
Budget Amendment No. 23-073
Attachment J
— Correspondence
15-6

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 32

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

HARBOR COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND

APPROVING A PILOT PROJECT TO RECONFIGURE
MOORING FIELD "C" IN NEWPORT HARBOR, TO

IMPROVE NAVIGATION SAFETY AND TO OPTIMIZE

SPACE WITHIN THE MOORING FIELD
WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission has evaluated the City of .Newport Beach's public mooring fields and provided a recommendation for new guidelines that better define rows and fairways to improve navigation, safety, and optimize space within the mooring fields;
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings and soliciting feedback at stakeholder meetings with resident associations and the Newport Mooring Association, the Harbor Commission adopted a number of recommendations at its March 8, 2023, meeting; and WHEREAS, the Harbor Commission's recommendations further include proposed amendments to Title 17 (Harbor Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which are the subject of Ordinance No. , which is being considered concurrently with this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1: Subject to Section 2 below, which limits the actual reconfiguration of the mooring fields to Mooring Field "C", the City Council does hereby approve the Harbor Commission's recommendations, as more specifically set forth below:

1. Reconfigure the City's mooring fields from the current formation of single - rows of varying, unspecified lengths to double rows with established maximum lengths.

The mooring design will be the same as the existing, i.e. two mooring buoys, but with a spreader line to prevent mooring buoys from drifting into the fairways. Alternatively, permittees may request to have their mooring equipped with a single mooring buoy and a sand line to retrieve the opposing anchor line (similar to what is used in Catalina).

2. Mooring permittees ("permittees") shall be assigned to moorings that are appropriate for their mooring lengths. Mooring lengths shall not exceed the established maximum lengths of the rows but may be shorter. It may not always be feasible to match permittees to rows matching their mooring lengths. Where a permittee is assigned to a 15-7

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 2 of 5 ends

row that exceeds their mooring length by 5-feet or more, the permittee shall be subject to relocation upon the City's approval of a valid mooring extension request by another permittee. The costs of relocation shall be borne by the permittee requesting the mooring extension. "Mooring length" means the maximum lineal foot of mooring specified on the mooring permit and which is the basis for calculating the permit rent.

3. To the extent possible, permittees' moorings assignments will match their pre -reconfiguration locations within the mooring fields. For example, a permittee who currently has an end -tie mooring will be assigned to an end -tie mooring if available in the properly -sized row.

4. The Harbormaster may require any permittee to move off or from their mooring when deemed necessary to address safety or navigation concerns.

5. For the approximately 10 requests for mooring extensions of up to 5 feet that the City received prior to November 1, 2022, the City will include the requested length extensions when making the new mooring assignments to the extent adequate space is available. Pending the new mooring assignments, the Harbormaster may permit those permittees to extend their mooring lengths by the requested lengths if the Harbormaster determines that the requested extensions will not adversely affect navigation, safety or impede either adjacent fairway.

6. The double -row mooring anchor systems may consist either of one shared anchor or two separate anchors, to be determined by the City. If a helical type of anchor is used as the one shared anchor, it will be provided by the City. To the fullest extent possible, all existing mooring equipment and materials (e.g., anchor weights, chains, tackle, hardware, buoys, etc.) will be used for the new mooring systems. Any additional anchor weights, chain, lines, conservation buoys or other hardware as necessary per new engineered specifications shall be provided at City's expense.

7. Permittees shall maintain, repair, and replace all components of the new anchor mooring system, e.g., all weighted anchors, chains, shackles, weights, lines and buoys, with the exception of any helical anchors installed by the City.

8. Permittees who are assigned to rows that exceed their mooring lengths shall not be subject to increased rent for the additional excess length unless they are approved for a mooring extension.

9. The reconfiguration of the fields will likely result in space for additional moorings. Permits for the newly -created moorings shall be issued on a basis to ensure that members of the public have equal opportunity to obtain a permit, such as through a lottery, waiting list, or other system to be determined by the Harbormaster. Permits for 15-8

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 3 of 5 ends

new moorings shall be made available to the public at rent that is at or close to fair market value and shall be non -transferable.

10. Existing mooring permits shall remain fully transferable until surrendered or revoked. Updates or changes in the information of permits, such as permittee names, assigned vessel, maximum mooring lengths, or mooring location, shall not constitute the issuance of a new permit and thus shall have no effect on transferability.

11. The current process for mooring extensions (increasing mooring lengths) shall be revised. If a permittee desires a mooring extension that will result in their mooring length exceeding the established length of their row, the permittee will have to relocate to an available mooring in an appropriately sized row within the same mooring field (the H and J Fields shall be considered one field). A mooring is considered available if it is vacant or occupied by a permittee with a mooring length at least 5-feet shorter than the established length of the mooring row. The permittee requesting the mooring extension shall bear the costs of moving their vessel and the displaced vessel. Extension requests shall require payment of a fee. The Harbormaster may approve extension requests upon making certain findings.

12. Permittees may not exceed the established lengths of their assigned rows.

No part of a vessel or any attachments thereto may extend into the fairways.

13. Specifications regarding moorings and associated equipment will be determined and adopted by the Harbor Commission instead of by City Council resolution.

Section 2: The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to undertake a pilot project to reconfigure Mooring Field "C" ("Pilot Project"). The Pilot Project will provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of possibly expanding the reconfiguration concepts to the remaining mooring fields. City staff shall return to the City Council and report on the Pilot Project so the City Council can decide whether a Harbor wide reconfiguration should be established.

Section 3: The City Council hereby approves Budget Amendment No.

BA- appropriating $410,000.00 to Account No. 10045451-81108 as follows:

1. $75,000 for consulting services and permitting with the California Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies;

2. $275,000 for design, engineering, and construction for the pilot project; and

3. $60,000 for post -pilot consulting services for environmental review and permitting necessary to expand the reconfiguration recommendations to the City's remaining mooring fields.
15-9

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 4 of 5 ends

Section 4: The City Council hereby adopts the additional offshore mooring equipment specifications set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Section 5: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.

Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 7: The City Council determines that the adoption of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (Common Sense Exemption) and categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15302 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Section 15306 under Class 6 (Information Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because the Pilot Project will have no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Under the common sense exemption, an activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, Section 15302 exempts projects that replace or reconstruct existing structures or facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose while Section 15306 exempts research, experimental management and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. The Pilot Project would be in the same location and serve the same purpose as the one being replaced. The Pilot Project is simply a reconfiguration of Mooring Field Cs single -row mooring system with a double -row that would result in a negligible increase in capacity and employ the same number of buoys as the existing conditions. The CEQA analysis prepared by Dudek, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by reference finds that while the Pilot Project is within an area where eelgrass is known to be present, it will have no effect on eelgrass habitat.

There are no known exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300J2 that would invalidate the use of this exemption. The Pilot Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource. Additional 15-10

Resolution No. 2023-

Page 5 of 5 ends

environmental analysis will be conducted if the City Council authorizes expansion beyond the Pilot Project.

Section 8: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.

ADOPTED this 231d day of May, 2023.

NCAH BLOM
Mayor
ATTEST:

Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
- C ffa'."'
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachment(s): Exhibit A — Offshore Mooring Specifications Exhibit B — CEQA Analysis Prepared by Dudek for C Field Pilot Project
15-11

EXHIBIT A

OFFSHORE MOORING SPECIFICATIONS
Spreader Lines. A spreader line is a line used in a double or two -mooring system and connects the bow and stern buoys. The line shall be at a minimum, 3/4-inch polypropylene. The spreader line shall be no longer than the length of the mooring plus five feet, equipped with 9-inch long two-color buoys affixed in -place to the line and no less than ten feet apart. The spreader line is intended to be affixed in -place and connecting the two buoys at all times the mooring is absent of a vessel. 15-12

Exhibit B
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 existingsingle-raw mooring system within the Mood ng"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).

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 mooringfield 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, allowing for normal growth of ee[grass beds. Conservation moorings are equipped with floating, flexible rodes that are designed to minimize or eliminate dragon the seafloor by floatingthroughout the tidal cycle. Eelgrass provides im porta nt f oragi ng 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.

Z 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 agenciesto 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 U5C 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
MAY 2023
15-14

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIELR 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, sea mounts, 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. pacifrca) beds are located in soft, sandy, sheltered seafloor environments, typically in shallow bays and estuaries.

Eelgrass beds function as nursery grounds and provide habitat for juvenile 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 highlyvaluable 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). CM Ps 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 CM Ps 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, overexploltation, 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
15-15

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAYS 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 boundarythat 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 fortheir 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
MAY 2023
15-16

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.

4.1.44. 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
15-17

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

4.1.4-6. 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 taxifoiia Survey protocols.

Eelgrass Protection and Restoration

4.2.55-1. 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 qua Iifies 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 2015y. 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 HAM was established to set goals and best management practices (BM Ps) 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 Go's RGP 54 from USAGE. 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 plies), 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 FBI I1 914111
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-18

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" adjacentto 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
15-19

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT. CITY OF NEWPORT SAY'S MOORING C FIELD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.1 Recommended Measures
Eelg m 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 50 days before start of construction.

Copies of all surveys should be provided to the lead federal agency, NOAA Fisheries, USAGE, 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 quantifyany 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.

Turbidtty. 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. 2005. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Accessed April 2023. https://www.newportbeachca-gov/PLN/General Plan COMPLETE FEBn r I 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%20pu rpose%20of%20th is% 20docu me nt°/a20 is%20to%20descri be,d redgi nr/o20activities%20typica I ly%20u ndertaken%20by%20i nd iv id ua 1%20property%20owners.

City of Newport Beach. 2018. Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. Accessed April 2023. htt s: www.new rtbeachca. ov overnmen de artments communi -develo men lannin divisi n en r I- I n-codes-and-re ulations local astal r ram 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. (CRMy. 2023. 2022 Eelgrass Monitoring in Newport Bay, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The City of Newport Beach. February 24, 2023. Revised April i, 2023. Accessed April 2023.

DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-20

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BAY'S MOORING C FIFLD PILOT PROJECT EELGRASS IMPACT ANALYSIS htt s: www,new ortbeachea. ov 'home show ublisheddocumen 73188 6381679715 423 000 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./Zme(]ia.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migratignZcei-np oct 2014 final. df DUDEK
14299.03
MAY 2023
15-21

SOURCE: Source: SLAG Aerials 2620
D U D E K 6 1000

2.0%,
Figure 1: Moorings and Eelgrass
L',ly of Newport Beach
15-22

ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 2023.8

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.25.020 (ANCHORAGE, BERTHING AND
MOORING REGULATIONS) AND 17.60.040 (MOORING

PERMITS) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Newport Beach's ("City") Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Charter and the State Constitution, and the power to exercise, or act pursuant to any and all rights, powers, and privileges, or procedures granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California;
WHEREAS, contemporaneous with the consideration of this ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. , which approved recommendations of the Harbor Commission as well as a Pilot Project to reconfigure Mooring Field "C" in Newport Harbor, to improve navigation safety and optimize space within the mooring field ("Recommendations");
WHEREAS, approval of the Recommendations require amendments to Sections

17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) and 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"); and WHEREAS, the amendments to Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) are not intended to change or affect the transferability of mooring permits existing as of the effective date of the ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows:

Section 1: Section 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) Subsection (A) (Location) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

A. Designated Areas. In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas, consideration shall be given to the needs of commerce, the utilization of the turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space.

1. No person owning, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any vessel shall:
15-23

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 2 of 13 ends

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.

Offshore mooring permittees who are assigned to mooring rows with established lengths that are greater than the permittees' mooring lengths by at least five feet shall be subject to relocation for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension requests under Section 17.60.040(M), with the costs to be borne by the requestor of the extension. The costs of moving the vessels or relocating to the reassigned mooring shall include the costs of moving the mooring equipment.

Section 2: Section 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) Subsection (F) (Chains and Fastenings) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

F. Mooring System Chains and Fastenings.

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 shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately sink. It shall not be a violation of this 15-24

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 3 of 13 ends

subsection for a double mooring to connect two mooring anchor lines or buoys with a spreader line having floats attached thereto to keep such spreader line afloat when the mooring is unoccupied.

3. With the approval of the Harbormaster, mooring permittees may use a single buoy system for a two -point mooring by use of a sand line, defined as a line from one anchor line to the opposing anchor line and that is properly weighted to immediately sink when dropped. The mooring permittee shall submit a mooring modification request to the Harbormaster with details of the modification, including diagrams, if requested. The Harbormaster may approve or conditionally approve the request if the Harbormaster determines that the modification will not result in any safety or navigational concerns.

Section 3: Section 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) Subsection (H) (Mooring, Anchoring and Vessel Condition Requirements), Paragraph (1) (Mooring Anchoring) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

H. Mooring, Anchoring and Vessel Condition Requirements.

1. Anchoring and Mooring. All vessels anchored on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean or in the designated anchorage area in Newport Harbor shall be. anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure. Vessels anchored in the designated anchorage area in Newport Harbor shall also 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 drifting in a way that interferes with or impedes safe navigation around the moored vessel, except in areas designated by the Harbormaster as single mooring areas. Vessels in single mooring areas shall be tied from the bow. Double or two -point moorings that are equipped with two mooring buoys for mooring to both bow and stern are required to have at all times (a) a vessel properly tied to both mooring buoys or (b) a spreader line secured and connected to both buoys. The spreader line shall be kept clean of algae and other marine growth to ensure it remains easily visible. The maximum permitted mooring lengths shall not exceed the established length of their mooring rows. No portion of a moored vessel or any object attached to the vessel may extend into the mooring field fairways.
15-25

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 4 of 13 ends

Section 4: Section 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) Subsection (1) (Maintenance) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

I. Maintenance. All moorings shall be kept in good and serviceable condition in the location assigned by the Harbormaster. Mooring permittees shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of mooring system components including, but not limited to, chains, shackles, anchors, weights, lines, buoys, and all other gear and equipment used in securing the vessel to the mooring. This subsection shall not apply to City -installed anchors for use as shared moorings, which shall be maintained, repaired, and replaced by the City.

Section 5: Section 17.25.020 (Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations) Subsection (J) (Specifications) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

J. Specifications. Specifications for the size of chains required on moorings, weights of moorings, and other mooring equipment shall be established by the Harbor Commission.

Section 6: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) Subsection (B) (Issuance of Permit —Conditions), Paragraph (1) (a) (Exceptions) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 5 of 13 ends

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 Harbormaster by the yacht clubs and LICA on or before February 1st.

Section 7: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits), Subsection (B) (Issuance of Permit —Conditions), Paragraph (2) (Permit Requirements) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

2. Permit Requirements. A mooring permit may be issued to a maximum of two persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. The mooring permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length, and assigned vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully comply with the following conditions:
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;
15=27

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 6 of 13 ends

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 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. Agree to move the vessel from the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster because the vessel has drifted from its assigned mooring location or to address safety or navigational concerns, and also to authorize the City or its designee to move the vessel upon the mooring permittee's failure to do so, at the permittee's expense, k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or his designee, :to board the permittee's vessel at any time to inspect the condition and; operability of the marine sanitation device(s) and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in accordance with applicable laws; and
I. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the 15-28

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 7 of 13 ends

permittee is subject to relocation within the same mooring field for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension requests. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. The costs of relocation, including the moving of mooring equipment, shall be borne by the mooring permittee who requested the mooring length extension.

Example: Permittee A has a mooring length of 35', a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 35' row. Permittee 8 has a mooring length of 30', a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 35' row. Permittee C has a mooring length of 36', a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 40' row. Only Permittee B is subject to relocation.

Section 8: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) Subsection (B) (Issuance of Permit —Conditions), Paragraph (3) (Perm ittee/Transferee Qualifications) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

3. Perm ittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or transferred to, only the following:
a. A natural person(s);
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. 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 15-29

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 8 of 13 ends

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.

Section 9: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) Subsection (E) (Transfer of Permit) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

E. Transfer of Permit. Mooring permits are non -transferable, with the exception of mooring permits that were issued prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. , which shall continue to be transferable unless surrendered or revoked. A mooring permit that is transferable may only be transferred one time in any twelve (12) month period, unless transferred to a member of the permittee's immediate family.

Section 10: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits) Subsection 11 (1) (Mooring Permit Transfer Nonrefundable Fee) Paragraph (3) of the NBMC amended to read as follows:

3. The transfer is to immediate family.

Section 11: Section 17.60.040 (Mooring Permits), Subsection M (Request to Extend Mooring Length) of the NBMC is amended to read as follows:

M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.

1. General. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed the established length 15-30

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 9 of 13 ends

of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring row lengths.

2. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring
permittee shall file a written request for extension of mooring length with the Harbor Department on a form prescribed by the
Harbormaster, together with the filing fee required by Ithe City's fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
b. Application Requirements. An application for extension of mooring length shall include the following information,in addition to such other information as may be required by the Harbormaster:
i. The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which the extension of mooring length 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 such mooring to accommodate the
proposed longer vessel; 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 15-31

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 10 of 13 ends

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, side -tie, or mooring row.

3. Action on Extension Request. For extension requests that require relocation to a larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more. The Harbormaster may approve the extension request 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 mooring length is filed;
b. The proposed extension of mooring length 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) encroaching into the fairway or extending beyond the outer boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Violate the established length of the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored;
C. The applicant and the assigned vessel have complied with all of the appropriate United States Coast Guard license, 15-32

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 11 of 13 ends

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.

Example of relocation to an available mooring. Permittee A wishes to upgrade their vessel "Atlantis" (40' LOA), which is. in a 40' row, with "Atlantis ll" (42' LOA). A will need to relocate to a mooring in a longer row since the mooring length cannot be extended at its current location. Permittee Bs vessel "Barnacle" (41' LOA) is in a 45' row. Permittee Cs vessel "Calypso" (40' LOA) is in 45' row.

Permittee D's vessel "Doldrums" (40' LOA) is in a 45' row. B has a permitted mooring length of 41'; C's permitted mooring length is 40', and D's permitted mooring length is 41'. All four moorings are in the same mooring field. Cs mooring is the only available mooring to which A can relocate.

4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster approves a request for extension of mooring length, such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with their vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval;
b. Transferable mooring permits shall not be sold or transferred for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of occupancy of the approved mooring. The sale or transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (13)(3), (E) and (F) of this section; and
C. The requestor shall cover all costs associated with modifying the length of their mooring, or in the case of a relocation moving their vessel to the available mooring and moving the displaced vessel from the available mooring. The costs shall include, but not be limited to, the moving of mooring anchors and tackle and resizing of mooring tackle to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size).

5. Noncompliance with subsection (M)(4)(a) or (b) of this section shall result in recission of the approval to extend mooring length. Within thirty (30) days of the recission, the permittee who requested the extension shall 15-33

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 12 of 13 ends

at its sole expense return the mooring to its prior maximum length or in the case of a relocation return their vessel and the displaced viessel to their prior assigned mooring locations or other mooring location's as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster. Violation of subsection (Ml)(4)(b) of this section shall be grounds for revocation of the mooring permit.', Section 12: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.

Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and ,each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 14: In addition to the findings in Resolution No. 2023- Section 7, which applies to the Pilot Project to reconfigure Mooring Field "C," in Newport Harbor, the City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

I
Section 15: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other sections, Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. 15-34'

Ordinance No. 2023-

Page 13 of 13 ends

Section 16: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) calendar days after its adoption.

This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 23rd day of May, 2023, and adopted on the 13th day of June, 2023, by the following vote, to -wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

NOAH BLOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
)""
C. t.__
AA ON C. HARP, CIW ATTORNEY
15-35

ATTACHMENT C

Page 115 ends

17.25.020 Anchorage, Berthing and Mooring Regulations.

A. Designated A
H_;;r_hA_rrA_;;!.;ttar ' In the designation of mooring areas and anchorage areas, considera ion shall bm given to the needs of commerce, the utilization of the turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space. 11 1- shall be A-A-redd Aor ain-Ghered iR aRY part of (H) ef this seGtieR. Every vessel moA-riad- A-F A-M-2hored *R aRY part ef the haarbhAor Aoutsidde of aRY 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. IR the n oii rr Minn and the eeenemy of mane r

3. Mooring permittees shall, at their expense, move their vessels or relocate to another mooring when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster to address vessels drifting from their assigned mooring locations or to address safety or navigational concerns. Offshore mooring permittees who are assigned to mooring rows with established lengths that are greater than the permittees' mooring lengths by at least five feet shall be subject to relocation for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension requests under Section 17.60.040(M), with the costs to be borne by the requestor of the extension. The costs of moving vessels or relocating to the reassigned mooring shall include the costs of moving the mooring equipment.

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.

NBMC 17.25.020 strikeout
15-36

Page 2 ends

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. Mooring System Chains and Fastenings.

2. All mooring lines on buoys shall be so arranged that, when dropped, they will immediately sink. I.Ali+h a d—A— uhle mnnrinn however, it shall be permissible It shall not be a violation of this subsection for a double mooring to connect two mooring anchor lines or buoys with a spreader line having floats attached thereto to keep such spreader line afloat when the mooring is unoccupied.

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 Meering AR heringAnchoring and Mooring. All vessels anchored on the open waters of the Pacific Ocean or in the designated anchorage area in Newport Harbor shall be anchored in such a manner so that the vessel does not come in contact with another vessel or structure. Vessels anchored in the designated anchorage area in Newport Harbor shall also 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 drifting in a way that interferes with or impedes safe navigation around the moored vessel, except in areas NBMC 17.25.020 strikeout
15-37

Page 3 ends

designated by the Harbormaster as single mooring areas. Vessels in single mooring areas shall be tied from the bow. Double or two -point moorings that are equipped with two mooring buoys for mooring to both bow and stern are required to have at all times (a) a vessel properly tied to both mooring buoys or (b) a spreader line secured and connected to both buoys. The spreader line shall be kept clean of algae and other marine growth to ensure it remains easily visible. The maximum permitted mooring lengths shall not exceed the established length of their mooring rows. No portion of a moored vessel or any object attached to the vessel may extend into the mooring field fairways. ^." �MoPOSo11 ;nnhnrorl in exteRd beyond- tht--- line of the designated A_.nr__hA_rage area.

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 following conditions:
a. Promotion of a fire hazard, including, but not limited to, improper open 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;
NBMC 17.25.020 strikeout
15-38

Page 415 ends

d. Storage or securing a vessel in such a way 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;
h. Violation of the terms and conditions of other use or rental permits as granted by the City;
i. Allowance of repetitive, boisterous or unruly conduct by the vessel operator or occupants when that conduct:

Is offensive to a person of ordinary sensibility, and
Continues after a written or oral request to terminate the conduct, or 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 nuisance abatement as provided in this title.

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 NBMC 17.25.020 strikeout
15-39

Page 515 ends

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. Mooring permittees shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of mooring system components, including but not limited to chains, shackles, anchor, weights, lines, buoys, and all other gear and equipment used in securing their vessels to the mooring. This subsection shall not apply to City -installed anchors for use as shared moorings, which shall be maintained, repaired, and replaced by the City.

J. Specifications. Additional Sspecifications for the size of chains required on moorings, a+4d-weights of moorings, and other mooring equipment shall be adeptedb,��s, Gity GE)YRGjGestablished by the Harbor Commission.

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 NBMC 17.25.020 strikeout
15-40

ATTACHMENT D

Page 1 ends

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.

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.

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)(4g) 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 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 NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-41

Page 2 ends

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. €-aGh A mooring permit may be issued for up to a maximum of two persons ("mooring permittee(s)") who shall be individually and collectively responsible for all activities related to the mooring permit. The mooring permit shall specify the assigned mooring location, the mooring length, and assigned vessel information. Mooring permittee(s) are subject to and shall fully comply with the following conditions:Te the -
satmsfaGtOO i of the Harbormaster, r�rithe mrORg permittee(s) droll• 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 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 Authorize the Gity, „r its de6igTee, Agree to move the vessel sn-from the mooring to another location when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster because the vessel has drifted from its assigned mooring location or to address safety or navigational concerns, and also to authorize the City or its designee to move the vessel upon the mooring permittee's failure to do so, at the permittee's expense; and
k. Agree to allow the Harbormaster, or his designee, to board the permittee's vessel at any time to inspect the condition and operability of the marine sanitation device(s) NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-42

Page 3 ends

and/or insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in accordance with applicable laws.-; and

1. Agree that if the permittee's maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more then the permittee is subject to relocation within the same mooring field for the purpose of accommodating mooring extension requests. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. The costs of relocation, including the moving of mooring equipment, shall be borne by the mooring permittee who requested the mooring length extension.

Example: Permittee A has a mooring length of 35, a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 35' row. Permittee 8 has a mooring lenqth of 30', a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 35' row.

Permittee C has a moorinq length of 36, a vessel LOA of 30', and is in a 40' row. Only Permittee 8 is subject to relocation.

3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit may be held only by natural persons unless the mooring permit is transferable, in which case it may be held by, or transferred to, only the following peFse+Rs:
a. A natural person(s) hE)IdmRg title +e 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.
the terms aR d nenrditiens stated in si bsentien (C) of +his oen+ien;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.

NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-43

Page 4 ends

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. NE) MEX)YORg permittee shall transfer a permit for a mooring or buoy granted ,inner the provisions of this nhapter, evrent: Mooring permits are non -transferable, with the exception of mooring permits that were issued prior to the date of adoption of Ordinance No. , which shall be continue to be transferable unless surrendered or revoked.

2. €XGeptwhei traR Fred k) immediate fam4y aA mooring permit that is transferrable may only be transferred under this s, bE;ention „n t„ one time in any twelve (12) month period, unless transferred to a member of the permittee's immediate family.

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 NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-44

Page 5111 ends

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 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.

NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-45

Page 6 ends

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 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 (B)(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 NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-46

Page 7 ends

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:

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; NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-47

Page 8 ends

2. The transfer is made under subsections (F)(7) and (8) of this section; or

3. The transfer is to immediate familymade pursuant tG subse tOOR iw1) of this seGtinn 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 as set 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 may be publicly auctioned by the City, or the City's designated representative, or the mooring equipment may be used for other City purposes.

M. Request to Extend Mooring Length.

NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-48

Page 9 ends

1. GeneralRevoew o, itherity. Mooring permittees shall not moor vessels that exceed their permitted maximum mooring length. If an offshore mooring permittee wishes to moor a vessel that requires an extension in mooring length, they may request an extension up to the established length of their mooring row. A request for an extension that would exceed the established length of their mooring row shall require the permittee to relocate to a larger mooring row. In no case shall mooring lengths exceed the established mooring row lengths. that is or will be IGRger thaR the assigned vessel, the Harbermaster may aMeRd the exiStiRg vessel up to a maximum ef five additieRal feet 'R aGGerdanGe With thiS subSeGtieR; previded, however, that the Harbermaster may refer SUGh appliGat'ORS to the Harbor COMMOSSOOR feF if aR offshore rneeriRg peFmittee wishes to moor a vessel other thaR the assigRed Ves fiRdiRgS iRGlu derd in SeGt.eR 17.05.140(D)(1).

2. Application.
a. Filing and Review of Request. An offshore mooring permittee shall file a written request for extension of mooring length aR evtepsiE)p of the assigned Vessel ono, ipaRGY lep,g -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.
b. Application Requirements. An application for extension of mooring length a_42�-- evtepsiop of the Vessel ,,GG ,papas„ length shall include the following information in addition to such other information as may be required by the Harbormaster:
i. The full identification of the applicant and the vessel for which the extension of mooring length an amendment to the existing offshore mooring permit 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 such mooring to accommodate the proposed longer vessel; 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.

NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-49

Page 10 ends

Adjusted LOA shall be used to determine the maximum vessel length that can fit in any particular slip, or--side-tie, or mooring row.

3. Action on Extension Request. I Inon reneint of a romnleted application for on extension of the assigned vessel nrri paRGY length For extension requests that require relocation to a larger mooring, a mooring of appropriate size must be available within the same mooring field. The H and J fields shall be considered as one field for the purpose of relocations. As used herein, an available mooring includes one that is occupied by a permittee whose permitted maximum mooring length is shorter than the established length of its mooring row by five feet or more. Tthe Harbormaster or the uarhnr Gnmmisslnn as Vie; may approve OF ronrtitionolly approve on omenrtment to the offshore meering the extension
request 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 mooring lengththe assigned vessel n^^, paRG , length is filed; b. The proposed extension of mooring length of the assigned „essel nGG61paRG , ler}g�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) encroaching into the fairway or E-extending beyond the outer boundaries of the mooring area or row; or
iv. Gvneed the intended vessel LOA established by Ge innil nnliViolate the established length of the row or mooring area in which the vessel will be moored; ar
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 Example of relocation to an available mooring. Permittee A wishes to upgrade their vessel 'Atlantis" (40' LOA), which is in a 40' row, with `Atlantis ll" (42' LOA). A will need to relocate to a mooring in a longer row since the mooring length cannot be extended at its current NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-50

Page 11 ends

location. Permittee Bs vessel "Barnacle" (41' LOA) is in a 45'row. Permittee Cs vessel "Calypso" (40' LOA) is in 45' row. Permittee D's vessel "Doldrums" (40' LOA) is in a 45' row.

B has a permitted mooring lenqth of 41, Cs permitted moorinq lenqth is 40', and D's permitted mooring lenqth is 41'. All four moorings are in the same mooring field. Cs moorinq is the only available moorinq to which A can relocate.

4. Conditions of Approval. If the Harbormaster erthe Harbor (`nmmiSSO r, as appli ablle, approves a request for extension of mooring length n app4Gafin�„ �me�n+ +n +ho n#ohnro mnnriRg Permit „RdeF +hio se Ghee' such approval shall be conditional and contingent upon the following requirements:
a. The mooring permittee must occupy the approved mooring with th�„e„ew their vessel within twelve (12) months following the date of approval; and b. Transferable mooring permits shall not be sold or transferredT-he mnnrinn permittee's rights pursuaRt te a valid . - . *mot, as aMeRded, shall Ret be seld E)p n+hnnencn +raRsferred for a period of twelve (12) months following the date of occupancy of the approved mooring with the Rew vessel. The sale or transfer of said permit shall comply with the requirements of subsections (B)(3), (E) and (F) of this section..-; and C. The requestor shall cover all costs associated with modifying the length of their mooring, or in the case of a relocation moving their vessel to the available mooring and moving the displaced vessel from the available mooring. The costs shall include, but not be limited to, the moving of mooring anchors and tackle and resizing of mooring tackle to meet applicable mooring standards (e.g., chain size).

5. Noncompliance with subsection (M)(4)(a) or (b) of this section Will Genstitute grounds for the Harbormaster to shall result in recission of the approval to extend mooring length.
the duty of the MOGFORg peFmittee to Femove the moored vessel tO FetWFR the ME)E)FORg area where vessel was assigned tG OtS GFigiRal IeRgth at the FROGFORg PeFMittee's expense within thirty (30) days of written RGtifiGatien to de se. Rather than reveFtiRg baGk to the Gity 61PE)R aGGOrdanGe with all of the terms and Genditions of the GFigiRal effshere meeFiRg permit and subjeGt to all of the terms and provisions of this title appliGable to meering permits. Within thirty (30) days of the recission, the permittee who requested the extension shall at its sole expense return the mooring to its prior maximum length or in the case of a relocation return their vessel and the displaced vessel to their prior assigned mooring locations or other mooring locations as deemed appropriate by the Harbormaster. Violation of subsection (M)(4)(b) of this section shall be grounds for revocation of the moorinq permit.

NBMC 17.60.040 strikeout
15-51

ATTACHMENT E
Mooring Field
Open Water Initiative
Improved Utilization Report
Newport Beach Harbor Commission Objective
For
Harbor Viability
Within
Functional Area 2.3
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 Ira Beer
Harbor Commissioner
November 9, 2022
15-52

�.

FQ V%
Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 as Approved by City Council Purpose: To evaluate the current mooring fields and provide a recommendation for new guidelines resulting in:
• Better Define Rows and Fairways To Improve Navigation and Safety • Improved Optimization Of Space Within The Mooring Fields • Additional City Moorings Within The Current Mooring Fields 15-53

Historically, the Newport Harbor Mooring Fields had been managed by the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD).

In 2017, the City of Newport Beach ended its contract with the OCSD Harbor Patrol for mooring administration and code enforcement, which is now managed by the Newport Harbor Resources Department.

Prior OCSD practice was to approve mooring extensions on an ad -hoc basis without any official policy, guidelines or best practices. This practice has resulted in poor utilization of open water space reducing the navigable areas within the mooring fields. • Since 2019, Harbor Commission policy has been to not approve mooring extension requests.

As a result of prior practice, the current space within the mooring field footprints in many cases is not safely navigable nor suitable for public access and in many locations has turned into what closely resembles a crowded parking lot. 15-54

New Double Rows vs. Single Row Mooring Configuration
Intention:
• Greatly improved utilization of water space within the mooring fields • Increase open water space throughout the harbor
• Create wider and well-defined fairways
• Increased spacing between moorings in the same row (appx minimum 50' on center) • More overall room to maneuver when tying to or departing from a mooring • Safer navigation throughout the mooring fields for all mariners (motor, sail and human powered craft)
• Option to use a single buoy mooring system (like what is used in Catalina) • Addition of long-term moorings to each mooring field. 15-55

Y t Single Row Mooring Field
Approximately 2bu Moorings covering 1.3 million sq/ft (30 ACRES) Newport Harbor Mooring Fields J & H
14,
I Air,
Without policies defining row and fairway sizes, a mooring field can become a safety concern to navigate and become very inefficient use of valuable waterways. 15-56

Double Row Mooring Configuration
America's Cup Harbor, San Diego
Approximately 180 Moorings covering 650,000 sq/ft (15 ACRES) 90% of the moorings in 50% of the space
Boats in double rows provide
more efficient use of space than
single rows allowing
for wider fairways that improve
safety, navigation and aesthetics.

The America's Cup Harbor
double row mooring field has
provided a space efficient and
safe harbor for mariners for the
past 40 years. America's Cup
Harbor experiences similar wind
speeds as Newport Harbor and
is subject to wakes from large
vessels including naval ships
from the main channel.
15-57

Wind Speeds
Newport Harbor and San Diego Harbor
Both Newport and San Diego Harbors Experience Similar Wind Speeds August 2022 Wind Speeds September 2022 Wind Speeds October 2022 Wind Speeds 20 is —
16 14 —
12 10
8 L
2 r11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 90 31 —Newport E-&. Lido Isle Max —Newport Beach, Lido ISIeAVg —San Uf go, La Playa Max —San ❑Me , La Playa Avg
20 —
is
16 —
14 12
10 8
4 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 —Newport E-&. Lido Isle Max —Newport Beach, Lido ISIeAvg —San U.go, La Playa Max —San ❑lego, La Playa Avg
M,
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 — _
2 B
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 50 31 —Newport Beach, Lido Wl Max—Nevp—B.M Lldo IsleMg
—San V go, La Playa Max —s-Dregq La Hays Avg
15-58

Cityof Newport Beach
' Harbor Design Standards
MARGINAL WALKWAY -_
Harbor Design Standards adopted by
the City of Newport Beach require the
fairways (navigational area between
slips) to be a minimum of 1.5 x the
boat LOA (Length Overall)
Arguably, the fairways between rows In
a mooring field should be held to the
same guidelines as a marina slip is
typically part of permanent structure.

A mooring in open water allows for
boat movement and drifting creating a
less forgiving environment to safely
navigate.
15-59

v ± Current Spacing Is Below
.t
Harbor Design Standards
Cluttered Fairway
Dangerously narrow and cluttered
fairway poses a safety hazard to all
mariners.

Fairway 12'
Spreader Line
Closer view of fairway shows approximately 12 feet
space to navigate through. Spreader line is longer
than the mooring creating a safety hazard.
15-60

rC�iv��i��i 1� +k�v 101
Narrow fairways under 20' in
places
Current Spacing Is Below
Harbor Design Standards
Spacing less than 10'
4 Often less than 20' distance between
boats in the same row
I
15-61

PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR NEWPORT HARBOR MOORINGS
;�wa I $, laill
l

BOAT LENGT' I O
{LO
1 i
FAIRWAY WIDTH (STERN TO STERN) = 1.5 x LOA
ti
DISTANCE [3.EtVV OATS
50 Olow
p
+ T t s
WWII 'Poo
* 'iF .�
15-62

�.

FQ V%
New Double Row Mooring Design — C Field
• When approaching a 50' mooring, a boater will have a 75' wide fairway (1.5 x its LOA) and open space of approximately 100' x 125' to grab the mooring line and secure the vessel. • A boater can safely move left or right a distance up to 50' when abandoning an attempt to retrieve the mooring line. A boat tied to a mooring should not be able to encounter adjacent boats in the same row. • Even with all this extra room, boaters must know how to properly operate their vessel and are responsible to match their ability with present conditions in an open an active mooring field. 15-63

Flexibility and Space
For
Mooring in Varying Conditions
When tailwinds or other
conditions affect the
approach to a mooring,
the improved open
water space between
moorings (50'to 60' on -
center), should be ample
room for approaching
the mooring from the
downwind or opposing
fairway.
15-64

v ±YO New Environmental Design
.t
F
Uses Conservation Moorings
OO
Mooring scarring destroys eel grass and disrupts
the marine ecosystem. The California Coastal
commission has imposed strict guidelines for eel
grass monitoring and mitigation.
bm
a
+JAW
50" z a". %".MA mm PW Pd9wn
-P.M T OW&P49 VW
Floats as shown in
the diagram will
keep the chain
mostly off the sea
floor allowing for
eel grass to
flourish and help
restore marine life
in the harbor.
15-65

�.

FQ V%
This is a poor utilization of space. Up to 15 boats in a row. Every row provides less than adequate spacing
and is not compliant with Harbor Design Standards.

New configuration provides improved navigation and
utilization of space. Only 11 boats per row vs 15. Every row is in substantial compliance with Harbor Design Standards 15-66

�.

FQ V%
C Field PilotTesfwBefore
Existing Conditions
All rows provide less than adequate
spacing that is not compliant with
Harbor Design Standards. Fairways are
only 41' to 65' wide with up to 75'
boats protruding into fairways.
• Many vessels are moored outside the
designated mooring field boundaries.
• Poor utilization of valuable water space
along the main channel of Newport
Harbor
15-67

�.

FQ V%
C Field PilotTestNwAfter
• New Configuration Provides Improved
Utilization of Space
• Every Row is in Substantial Compliance
with Harbor Design Standards. All boats
are spaced 50' - 55' on center and
fairways range from 60' to 100'.
• Rows Reduced in Size from 6 to 7 Boats
Down to 5 Boats
• 7 New Moorings Are Added
• 2 Acres of New Open Water Created
Along The Main Channel (appx 1200' x 70'
• Greater Distance Between the Mooring
Field and Residential Properties
• Complete one -double row then test and
confirm engineering design before
continuing with the balance of the field. 15-68

Title 17 Changes to
Sections 17.25.020 and 17.60.040
Summary
• Accommodation for all prior mooring extension requests up to five feet that were received before November 1, 2022
• Creating an opportunity for future extensions through a mooring exchange program where practicable
• Creating an option to allow for double mooring rows with optional shared anchor systems
• Allow mooring permittees to use a proper length floating spreader line attaching bow to stern mooring buoys and requiring the spreader line be connected to both mooring buoys when the boat is off mooring
• Future new mooring permits issued will be non-transferrable • Policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged • General clarifications to existing policy
15-69

Newport Harbor
Mooring Field Reconfiguration
Summary
• Adding open water space for use by all mariners over public tidelands. • No upfront cost to existing mooring permittees.
• Accommodation for all 5' mooring extension requests received before November 1, 2022. • Greater average distance in rows between boats for safer mooring. • All relocations will be in the same mooring field with consideration for like -for -like positioning, where practicable.
• Substantially wider fairways for improved public access and safer navigation through the mooring fields for both human -powered and motor -powered craft. • Improved aesthetics for shoreline properties of residents, commercial establishments, visitors and all harbor users.
• Additional moorings that will (i) be more affordable and require no initial investment to use, and (ii) generate additional revenue for the Tidelands Fund and Harbor Operations. • Return of capital investment as a result of new mooring revenue to the City. 15-70

Question & Answer
Session
for
Harbor Commissioners
Presented by
Ira Beer
Harbor Commissioner

Public Comments
Open fOYum

ATTACHMENT F
From: John Rogers
Sent: March 01, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Blank, Paul
Subject: Double row moorings
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Paul -
I wanted to let you know I strongly object to any double row Moorings proposed - The entire approach to this debacle has been a disaster!
Please consider my thought when you vote or speak to their commissioners! Thankyou
John Rogers
Synergy Direct Response
130 E. Alton Ave.

Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-824-3780
15-73

Hermosa Beach Office Go, BC' y '
Phone: (310) 798-2400
San Diego Office Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP
Phone: (858) 999-0070 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (619) 940-4522 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
November 8, 2022
VIA E-MAIL([email protected],
[email protected])
City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
c/o Office of the City Clerk
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Douglas P. Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
Re: Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures Require Coastal Development Permit; November 9, 2022 Harbor
Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation, we are writing to inform the Harbor Commission that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") to proceed with its proposal to amend the City of Newport Beach Harbor Code (Municipal Code, Title 17, sections 17.25.020 and

17.60.040) in order to modify mooring procedures. The City's proposal to eliminate mooring extensions and conduct a pilot test constructing new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit is required. Further, the proposal would encourage unsafe navigation by large vessels in the mooring fields, and would impede coastal views. Thus, we urge the Harbor Commission to advise the City that it may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.

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

The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of protecting recreational and commercial boating and fishing activities. (See Pub. Resources Code §§30224, 30234, 30234.5.) The City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan ("LUP") also emphasizes the importance of maintaining access to moorings, with Policy 3.3.2-3 which states "Continue to 15-74

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 15-75

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 15-76

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.aovinfo.,-ov/content/pkg/FR-2012-04-16/pdf/2012- 9006.pdf.) Special anchorage areas "should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels." (33 C.F.R. §109.10.) Thus, fairways that accommodate large vessels should not be located within the mooring fields.

V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.

We are also concerned with City staff s questionable assertion that the mooring reconfigurations would greatly improve harbor views. (October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission Agenda Packet, p. 82.) The proposal to push mooring rows together will alter view corridors from the public boardwalk around Balboa Island (and other boardwalks in Newport Harbor). (See Pub. 15-77

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.

The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code present significant changes that would alter access to water and construct new moorings in the submerged mooring fields. The proposed mooring reconfiguration would encourage unsafe navigation of large vessels that impede coastal access for small-scale recreational boaters and others, and would obstruct coastal views.

Accordingly, the proposed mooring plan constitutes development under the Coastal Act and appears to be in conflict with the Coastal Act. As such, it must be reviewed for approval by the Coastal Commission. We request that the Harbor Commission, in fulfilling its charge, advise the City of these issues prior to making any recommendation.

Sincerely,
-/47�` +A-'
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
15-78

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

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

II. The Proposed Revisions to the Harbor Code Eliminating Mooring Extensions Constitute Development and Require a Coastal Development Permit.

The proposed revisions state:

Requests for mooring extensions shall no longer be considered.

Instead, requests for a longer or extended mooring will require relocating to a larger mooring. The mooring permittee making the request shall pay a fee for the relocation request and shall 15-80

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.

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.

V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

VI. Conclusion.

Sincerely,
-/47�` +A-'
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
15-83

From: Sunjana Supekar
Sent: November 08, 2022 4:07 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Harbor Feedback
Cc: Doug Carstens
Subject: November 9, 2022 Harbor Commission Meeting; Comments re Agenda Item 3
Attachments: 2022-11-08 Letter to Harbor Commission fnl.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Commissioners,
Please see attached a comment letter from the office of Chatten-Brown, Carstens and Minteer on behalf of the Newport Mooring Association regarding Agenda Item 3 for the November 9, 2022 City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission Meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Sunjana Supekar
Sunjana Supekar (she/her)

CHATTEN-BROWN, CARSTENS & MINTEER
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Tel: 310-798-2400 Ext. 7
Fax: 310-798-2402
Email: ssskcbcearthlaw.com
Website: www.cbcearthlaw.com
15-84

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

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

II. The Proposed Revisions to the Harbor Code Eliminating Mooring Extensions Constitute Development and Require a Coastal Development Permit.

The proposed revisions state:

Requests for mooring extensions shall no longer be considered.

Instead, requests for a longer or extended mooring will require relocating to a larger mooring. The mooring permittee making the request shall pay a fee for the relocation request and shall 15-86

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.

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.

V. The Proposed Mooring Reconfiguration Would Impact
Harbor Views.

City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission
November 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

VI. Conclusion.

Sincerely,
-/47�` +A-'
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
15-89

From: Fred Fourcher
Sent: November 08, 2022 3:53 PM
To: Harbor Feedback
Subject: Document to be entered into the record for tomorrow's Harbor Commission Meeting
Attachments: Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners.docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Fred Fourcher, Chairman
Bitcentral, Inc.
[email protected]
Direct 949 417 41 1 1
Cell 714 914 1000
,-1. 1-1 ..di. —F. —.
15-90

Fred Fourcher
507 Larkspur
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners,
I have lived in Corona Del Mar since 1979 and have had my offshore and onshore moorings since 1976. My offshore mooring and onshore mooring are on Balboa Island and adjacent to each other.

It is stated that the intent is to improve the harbor to the benefit of mooring permittees.

What is being decided is if the City of Newport Beach can move our boat to a different mooring permanently without our permission and at our expense, is clearly not for the benefit of mooring permittees and has some other purpose. Mooring locations are picked for a reason, Permittees acquired permits in specific locations such as proximity to their house, yacht club or shore mooring. This major disruption will result in lawsuits and political fallout. The people who you are supposed to be serving will do whatever it takes to keep the current order in the harbor. This is simply a bad idea with massive un-intended consequences.

This proposal is deeply troubling because the Harbor Commission is usurping the decision - making responsibility from our Elected Officials. There is no reason to be revising the city harbor code for a pilot test of a questionable mooring system.

This proposal is not for the benefit of the Mooring Permittees. I along with others will mobilize to fight the Harbor Commission to keep this poorly conceived proposal from being implemented.

Fred Fourcher
15-91

From: Admin
Sent: November 08, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Blank, Paul; [email protected] Cc: NMA Email Board
Subject: Newport Mooring Association Comments and Concerns Attachments: Newport Mooring Association's comments regarding the 11-9-22 Harbor Commission Item 3 .pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Harbor Commission —
Please find attached the Newport Mooring Association's comments regarding the November 9th, 2022, Newport Beach Harbor Commission Item #3 -Recommendations Resulting from Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests.

Thank you,
The Board of Directors
Newport Mooring Association
https://newportmooringassociation . org
15-92

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 15-93

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 15-94

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 15-95

Newport Mooring Association
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".
15-96

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

I. The Coastal Conunission 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.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 15-98

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 7 15-99

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_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 15-100

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.

Sincerely,
Douglas P. Carstens
Sunjana Supekar
0 15-101

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 15-102

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) 713-5277 Sincerely,
Capt. James Maley
15-103

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
June 8, 2022
July 13, 2022
August 10, 2022
September 14,1022
October 12, 2022
November 9, 2022
Deurn r14,2022
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 eeptxt-
Nothing to report.

Nothing to report_

NMA NOTES REGARDING TIMELINE
Chair Beer discussed this objml rye rn detail
ar in the rT*eting. 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 inic�inn i
third and t has been received. Further feedback
I
be requested of the Commission at next month's
Presented no substantive details of mooring ptan
!ring.

No harbor code revisions presented
Chair Beer discussed this objective In detail
I
ie► In the meeting. He brought before the
Presented slideshow of mooring field redesign
Rrnission his draft plan for feedback
No harbor code revisions presented
Chair Bow nor, t000md nlormauon kern
"com+ng"
naa" firm ano we provWe a more cnn�ratra
No updates, engineering report
a At next month•. nuft"_
! Chair Beer noted that he is waiting on the final
xt from the City's contract engineer. Once
Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
lives that he can venfiy the information and
No harbor code revisions presented
vide a report to the Commission_
Presented no substantive details of mooring plan
No harbor code revisions presented
f Chair Bev will provide a complete report of this
.Ctive at the next meeting-
! Chair Beer provided a complete report on
ective goal 2.3 for Consideration by the Harbor

FIRST PRESENTATION OF COMPLETE REPORT
iirtment

FIRST SUBMISSION OF HARBOR CODE REVISIONS
12 15-104

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 15-105

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 15-106

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 15-107

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 15-108

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 15-109

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
15-110

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 15-111

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 15-112

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 15-113

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 15-114

commerce, the utilization of turning basins, the use of channels for navigation, and the economy of space.

C. Berthing.

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 15-115

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.

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 15-116

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.

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 15-118

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.

M. Administration. The Harbormaster shall administer all provisions in this section. 27 15-119

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
15-120

of the high tide mark where moorings may be moved or relocated.

Second Attachment:

17.60.040 Mooring Permits.

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
15-121

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 15-122

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,
15-123

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 15-124

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

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 15-125

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..

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.

3. If transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the assigned vessel and does not have title to 34 15-126

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.

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 15-127

the requirements of subsection (B) of this section, without any transfer fee imposed by the City.

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:

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 15-128

1. Provision of a written representation of the mooring sub-permittee's vessel length which shall be satisfactory to the 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;

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 15-129

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.

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.

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
15-130

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 15-131

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
15-132

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 15-133

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 15-134

From: jerry mcgraw
Sent: November 07, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council; [email protected] Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: Mooring Re -co nfigeration
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We as stakeholders of mooring permits have had no workshop type meetings regarding Commissioner Beers mooring realignment proposal. As We can only voice3 minute statements at Commission meetings and neither ask or receive answers to questions, perhaps one of you or some staff would be kind enough to answer a few for me.

As it is stated there will be no "upfront" cost to the existing permittees, what is the projected cost to the City? Whose budget will it come from? How much has already been spent on an untested system for Newport Harbor? Whose budget?
If the City is responsible for maintenance of the Helix system are they going to pay for the chain attached to the Helix anchor and the diver to inspect it and install new chain if necessary? With the Helix system, I'm guessing not assuming that weight will still be used for the other end of the mooring? If that is correct and the scope of the chain rode is reduced from 35' to 25' how much weight will be required for the weighted end? If more than the current minimum of 2000lbs. for a 50' mooring who is responsible for the cost. about $1.00/lb. for the additional weight? Why has the City not tested this system before trying to push it through the objections of the current mooring permittees? This could be easily done using the City's current sandline guest moorings. Such a test could be set up and current permittees could use their own vessels in varying weather conditions and provide feedback to the Commission. I don't believe it is necessary to do a beta test in one of the mooring areas at tax payers expense when there are City sandline moorings to be used.

In reading Commissioner Beer's proposal it appears a driving interest is to create more open space in the harbor and make moorings more affordable. If the city adds their proposed 96 new moorings throughout the harbor what are their proposed rental fees? Using the City's current guest rental of $1.33 per foot per day for a 40' mooring is $53.20/day or long term almost $1600M Is that affordable? If a boater must use a larger mooring due to availability will they be charged for the larger mooring? That's the practice for the guest slips at Marina Park as you pay for a 40' slip, if your vessel is 44' you pay an additional charge. The moorings here in Newport have no shore boat service and the few public docks are already overcrowded and have time limits making shore trips difficult. What will happen when there are 96 more dinghies trying to find a place to park?
If the intent is to truly open more navigable space perhaps the two yacht clubs having single can swing moorings should also be changed to a double row configuration or is dealing with the yacht clubs to much of a political issue.

I have operated boats in his harbor for the past 68 years, including 27 years with the 15-135

sheriff's harbor patrol and it's predecessor the Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks retiring in 1999.
this included one night working in a 26' patrol boat with winds of 70 to 90 kts. here in Newport along with a number of times in winds of 30 kts plus never having a problem working in the various mooring areas.Today as a liveaboard in the harbor I never see the current Harbor services workers or sheriff's deputies out under any sort of extreme weather.

I feel this double row configuration is not in the interest of safe navigation but perhaps only a plan to fill the City's coffers.

Jerry McGraw
Permitted Liveaboard H-032
15-136

From: Keith Garrison
Sent: November 07, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Cheryl Nowak, President; Tom Miller
Subject: Your Proposal Changes
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Gentle Persons,
I wanted to share my opinion as a mooring holder of more than 20 years that I feel you are railroading the current mooring holders into a reconfiguration that is not wanted by the majority of us. There should be transparency and and several public hearings where the proposed changes are discussed and voted on by all the mooring holders in the Harbor.

So I urge you to call for open meetings and share publicly all of your discussions wit any engineering firms analyzing reconfiguring the mooring layout. You are elected and appointed to be working for us and it seems that we were no acknowledged or considered.

Please let me know what positive actions are being considered to remedy this situation.

With best regards,
Keith
Keith Garrison - VP/Gen. Mgr.

GBF Enterprises, Inc.
2709 Halladay St.

Santa Ana, CA 92705
714-979-7131 Fax 714-979-1815
www.2bfentemrises.com
[, r4i icI
WB�r
4Ccm�,t's 9whL&Ls Fnreraua
The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary and could be subject to U.S. Export Laws and/or controlled by the US International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) 22 CFR 120-130. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom this email has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this document and you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, reproduction, or further viewing of this email without 15-137

permission from the author is strictly prohibited. GBF Enterprises Inc. takes no responsibility, either direct or indirect, or any unauthorized dissemination of such data or materials 15-138

From:
larry reid
Sent:

November 07, 2022 9:39 AM
To:

Dept - City Council; Harbor Commission
Cc:

Newport Mooring Association; larry reid
Subject:

Pre -Nov. 9, 2022 meeting comments
Attachments:
council letter -revised for Nov 9.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon,
I have attached a letter addressing some of my concerns about the upcoming agenda items to be presented this Wednesday. Please consider these as you try to make these major changes to the current Title 17 rules.

Sincerely,
Larry Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047.
15-139

OPEN LETTER TO THE DISTINGUISHED

MEMBERS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
P--,11in we
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this letter in an effort to persuade you to head off the current direction of the Harbor Commission in its' effort to not only change the current rules concerning transferability of mooring permits, but also, in my opinion, the outrageous format presented to validate the increase in shore mooring rates. I will follow with a brief family history and comment on the mooring transfer issue and then conclude with a comment on the proposed lease rate increases.

My name is Lawrence Reid. I am a permittee for mooring sites, A-231 and P-047, both an offshore and on shore mooring. I have been so since 2013 when I acquired the permit rights via the open market subject to all requirements and conditions in place at that time. My family has been involved and concerned with Newport Harbor since my grandfather purchased a homesite on 61" Street in 1915 and built a cottage home there in 1917 and continue to be involved to this day. I personally solidified that involvement by finding a complimentary pair of moorings to settle into a "life on the water" situation.

At that time of my searching for two moorings, the management of the moorings fell under the jurisdiction of the OCSO. The "Golden Rule" of trying to purchase permit rights on the open market at that time was to make ABSOLUTELY sure that there was a remaining transfer option available to me after purchase. There were many mooring sites on the market that had already exhausted that option so the due diligence I invested was paramount to preserve that future transfer option for me. While not cheap, the verified confirmation and assurance from the OCSO that I had another transfer available made it doable.

Therefore, I urge you to strongly oppose any new proposal that negates the existing status quo of the ability to transfer permit rights on the private market to not only those permittees that had additional transfer rights conferred to them, but to all mooring permittees as a group.

To the current discussions on the rental rate increases for a shore mooring permit. As proposed, the shore mooring lease fees will be based off of prime commercial property lease rates as indicated in the current commercial tideland appraisal. On the surface, this is certainly not an example of an apple to apple comparison on so many different levels. Shore permittees are already being charged the most per square foot for tideland use when compared to residential dock, pier and commercial tideland rates. It is neither fair nor equitable to make any significant rate increase that does not take into consideration the disproportional fee considerations that the pier permittees do not have to pay for the use of the same tidelands, not to mention the revenue streams available to them for slip or side tie rentals without any restrictions.

When you consider the hoops that I as a shore mooring leasee has to go through, under the current formats, I receive no benefit from my lease. The Harbor Department can rent out my space if unoccupied 15-140

without notice for long periods of time but I can't sublet my mooring without "owning" the boat that is being used. I pay for all of the upkeep without any maintenance monies being set aside to assist in the upkeep. The City keeps it all. As far as insurance coverage goes, I have to indemnify the City whether my boat is on my mooring or not, the City requires the rental craft to indemnify the City prior to use but nowhere in the City Title does it require the transient boat to indemnify me. I am left again, holding a wet, empty paper bag.

Currently, we are now faced with some agenda items to be presented at the November 9, 2022 commission meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend in person. For the life of me I can't understand the massive effort being mustered to completely eviscerate the parity and quality of life that both the on -shore and off -shore permittees should expect.

What is the main push to change what has been the norm for almost forever? To think that a double off- shore mooring is going to improve the off -shore mooring lifestyle is ludicrous in my opinion. Who will pay for the added upkeep for the new common mooring ball? Why would you create a navigational hazard knowing the prevailing winds are from the west in the harbor. The current set-up allows for maximum maneuverability in ALL wind conditions? Now to consider the possibility that in order to use my offshore mooring I would need to first see if my boat has been moved to another part of the harbor for reasons that appear to be so flaky it makes me shudder.

I could go on and on, but let me close by saying, the Harbor Commission needs to quit treating the mooring permittees as the black sheep of the family and quit trying to legislate these ill-founded extra burdens on current permittees.

Thank you for your time and effort. It is not an easy job and you won't please everyone as you know. The current proposed changes need to be "deep sixed" immediately.

Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Reid
Permittee A-231 and P-047
15-141

From: Stacy Kline
Sent: November 07, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Harbor Commission
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Changes to Newport Harbor Mooring Fields & Title 17 of Newport Beach Municipal Code
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Esteemed City of Newport Beach Councilmembers,
My husband and I are long time Newport Harbor Mooring Permit Holders. We purchased our mooring permit in 2005, and we are deeply connected to this issue. We would like for our current and future City of Newport Beach councilmembers to understand why we are concerned about the proposed changes to the Newport Harbor Mooring Fields and Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing Newport Harbor.

We have several concerns regarding the proposed changes by the Newport Harbor Commission.

Q Protecting our Beautiful Newport Harbor
We understand the value of our exquisite harbor, its importance to our Orange County watershed and marine ecosystem, and its value to our local sailing and watersports community. To that end, we have paid our annual mooring permit fees, scheduled and paid for a biennial mooring overhaul, and have kept our 28' Bristol Channel Cutter in outstanding condition, demonstrating that we have been good stewards of our mooring for over 17 years.

Q Maintaining our Current Mooring Position
My husband and I chose our mooring in the C Mooring field near the Fernando Street dock, specifically for its location near our home. As you know, taking care of a sailboat, monitoring it for sea lions, and keeping it in seaworthy condition, takes constant effort, and having this particular mooring, so close to our home, in no small part has helped us to keep our sailboat in a state that we are proud to share in our Newport Harbor community. Forcing us to move our sailboat to a new mooring position is an unnecessary hardship, especially with regards to the attention we have paid to keep it in such good condition.

Q Maintaining a Safe and Navigable Mooring
The mooring field configuration changes proposed by the Newport Harbor Commission (bow -to -bow shared anchor set-up/bow-to-stern shared anchor set-up and only 20 feet separating the boats) is an unsafe configuration. Given the strong prevailing westerly/southerly winds in Newport Harbor and the strong tidal currents, this extremely close proximity between boats makes mooring extremely challenging and risky given the strong forces involved. Additionally, the Newport Harbor Commission's proposed "sand lines" are untenable in Newport Harbor. Our seafloor consists of muddy silt and any "sand line" on the stern would be covered with muck and unusable.

Q Mooring Extension Restrictions
15-142

Several years ago the city raised the annual fees for mooring permit holders considerably. Since our sailboat is only 28 feet on deck, we reduced our mooring from 45' to 30'. With the current mooring configuration, our sailboat fits comfortably and safely within its mooring footprint. However, our sailboat has a 8 foot bowsprit, and with the proposed close -quarters mooring configuration, our length overall (LOA) will render our mooring too small to accomodate our sailboat. We would gladly return our mooring length to its original 45' size, but we are no longer allowed to do so (not without a $1250 appeals fee that has no guarantee of success). Had we been made aware back of the Newport Harbor Commission's proposed configuration plans back in June 2022, when the final opportunity to lengthen a mooring was offered, we would have requested the change back to our original 45' mooring permit length.

Q Mooring Transferability
As a school teacher and a small business owner, my husband and I are middle-class sailboat owners.

Purchasing a mooring in 2005 for $49,000, because we were told by Newport Beach City officials that it was the only way to secure a mooring in Newport Harbor, was no small investment. We were very grateful to acquire our mooring, and have proudly cared for the mooring and our sailboat ever since.

Although much has been said about the cost of moorings, we have seen no increase in value whatsoever in 17 years of owning our mooring permit. As you can imagine, the proposed changes to remove our ability to transfer our mooring to a new permit holder is deeply concerning. We do not expect to gain anything monetarily from our mooring permit; however, the ability to recoup some of the expense of the initial purchase of this mooring permit is understandable to a councilmember. Several years ago Title 17 was settled law, allowing mooring transferability with reasonable restrictions regarding number of moorings allowed per year, and a transfer fee that serves to restrict the number of transfers annually.

There is no reason to change Title 17 at this point, it will cause harm to current mooring permit holders who have consistently played by the rules, paid their fees, and kept their mooring and vessels in seaworthy condition.

Q Transparency of Mooring Field Planning for all Stakeholders My husband and I were not made aware of the plans to significantly change the configuration of the mooring field of which we are permit holders, and the proposed changes to Title 17 and mooring permit transferability until the October 10, 2022, Newport Harbor Commission meeting. I spoke at this meeting, identified myself as a mooring permit holder, and asked that the mooring permit holders be involved in the planning process due to the significant impact our moorings have had on our lives. I mentioned that we had received no notifications about these plans via mail or email, and that I was startled to realize that there was to be a final vote to proceed during the meeting, rather than simply a discussion on these proposed plans. It is important that all stakeholders feel that "they are part of the solution" and that "things are not just happening to them".

We are planning on attending the next Harbor Commission meeting on Wednesday, November 9, 2022.

We are very grateful for your concern about this issue.

Best regards,
Stacy & Greg Kline
Newport Beach, California
15-143

From: Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty

Sent: November 04, 2022 1:38 PM
To: Beer, Ira
Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: RE: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you Mr. Beer,
Mine is a 50' mooring.

Thank you for the clarification. The 20' seem very light bow to stern with the other boat. I like the option of the sand line... It might ease the access with more space while entering the mooring space.

In you original email, you mentioned the following:
• No upfront cost to existing mooring permittees. If approved as is, the City of Newport Beach will pay all costs for the improvements.

This current proposed initiative will have no change to current mooring permittee transferability of permits as per Title 17 of the Civil Code.
but I have heard that there were conversations about charging the boat owner for the relocation cost.

Which is it please?
I am not sure I can attend the meeting... At what time is it please? Thanks,
Nicolas Jonville
From: Beer, Ira
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 12:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Blank, Paul
Subject: Re: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
Hello Mr. Jonville,
Thank you for your comments and input. I assure you that all your concerns are taken very seriously. One item mentioned may not be clear from the prior drawings is the increased space between boats in the same row (average about 50' on center) and the increased fairway widths (minimum 60' stern to stern between rows). This allows for an approach from either fairway under prevailing conditions.
15-144

I hope you will be able to attend the Harbor Commission meeting next Wednesday, November 9, 2022 where this initiative will be discussed in detail, and I am sure the commission would love to hear your input.

Best regards,
Harbor Cone rnissiorFer
From: Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty Organization: Nicolas Jonville-JonvilleTeam/Keller Williams Realty Reply -To: "[email protected]"
Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 at 12:19 PM
To: Harbor Commission
Cc: "[email protected]"
Subject: Moorings in Newport Beach Harbor
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello!
Dear Harbor commissioners,
I am a mooring permittee in Newport Beach Harbor, in the A field, near the Balboa Pavilion.

I am very concerned and against the 1- proposed reconfiguration of Newport Beach mooring field (example of America's Cup Harbor) and also 2- strongly against the proposed revisions to the Harbor Code (I believe Title 17) making any relocation at the owner's cost and without consideration for owner's will regarding location.

Regarding #1-
a- I have been a sailor for 40+ years, and the weather and conditions are completely different in the America's Cup Harbor. My boat used to be in San Diego area and I am very familiar with the set-up there. In Newport beach, the impact of wind and currents are much more prominent than in San Diego America's Cup harbor. They are much more challenging in Newport Beach. The new set-up with only 20' or so between two boats (aft or forward) is not reasonable and will likely turn into serious potential issues under medium to strong conditions (wind and current). We see boats dancing by far more than 20' at times with gusts and strong current — It will most certainly result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.
b- The approach will be much more difficult for some of the boats that might have to enter their mooring space in windy conditions with the wind pushing the boat into the mooring, with another boat very close to their boat bow (20' or so). This makes it far more difficult and hazardous compared to going forward, against the wind most of the time (with the wind slowing the boat down), to set the forward mooring line first, upwind ... the safest 15-145

option, and allowed by the current lay -out. The current lay -out has far more than 20' from the bow to the other boat's aft.
c- Any new set-up should be tested on a voluntary basis before any implementation to any larger scale.
d- Again, the proposed changes will most likely result in damages and accidents, possibly injuries.

Regarding #2-
a- All boat owners have acquired their mooring permit based on size, and location. Changing the rules by making the boat owners relocate at their cost and without their input/agreement on location is not appropriate, nor fair and any relocation should be with their approval and not at the mooring permittee's cost.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking forward to the discussion and appropriate decision.

Best Regards,
Nicolas Jonville, Newport Beach mooring permit owner
T: 760-207-7130
[email protected]
15-146

From: Karl Drews
Sent: November 04, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Harbor Commission; Dept - City Council
Subject: Title 17
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Harbor Commission and City Council,
My wife and I have been residents of Newport Beach and have had a license for an offshore mooring for 35 years. We oppose the proposed Title 17 for many reasons. The primary reason is the proposed mooring field is dangerous. With the impact of the wind and tides the boater needs to have the option of approaching the mooring from weather direction.

The proposed design does not allow that choice.

Regards,
Karl Drews
15-147

From:

Nicolas Jonville-Jonville Team/Keller Williams Realty

Sent:

November 04, 2022 12:19 PM
To:

Harbor Commission
Cc:

[email protected]
Subject:

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

Hello!
Dear Harbor commissioners,
I am a mooring permittee in Newport Beach Harbor, in the A field, near the Balboa Pavilion.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Looking forward to the discussion and appropriate decision.

Best Regards,
Nicolas Jonville, Newport Beach mooring permit owner
T: 760-207-7130
[email protected]
15-149

From: Donald Farley
Sent: November 03, 2022 1:13 PM
To: Harbor Feedback; Beer, Ira
Subject: Proposed Changes to Mooring Fields J and H
Attachments: Newport Harbor Commissioners, 11-2-22a.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Please consider the attached comments.

Thank you.

Don
Mooring J54
Donald V. Farley
139 Carlin Lane
Riverside, CA 92307
Phone/Fax (951) 683-1050
Cell/Voice Mail (909) 228-6970
e-mail: [email protected]
Confidentiality Note:

The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, protected by applicable legal privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. 15-150

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

Newport Beach City CouncilMay 23, 2023

Newport Beach City Council
May 23, 2023