NMA Concerns

May 22, 2023

Dear Mooring Permittees - 

Our City Council will be voting on significant harbor code changes and pushing boats and moorings dangerously close together with double-row (tandem) mooring configuration. We hope this video and report help clarify the NMA's position on the proposed reconfiguration.

Here is a short video that demonstrates the current and proposed configurations, pointing out the NMA concerns regarding the tandem mooring system, comparing the wind and tides of Newport Bay with America's Cup Harbor:

Newport Harbor Mooring Configuration - YouTube

We have also provided a professional oceanographer's analysis of the tidal flow in Newport Bay compared to those in the America's Cup Harbor in its entirety below. Per the oceanographer's report, tidal currents are 32 times stronger in Newport than America’s Cup Harbor: 

Tidal Currents in Newport Bay Compared to Americas Cup Harbor

Bart Chadwick – Coastal Monitoring Associates

3/21/2023

Currents in coastal embayments along the Southern California coast are influence by a number of factors including morphology, tides, winds, river flows, and temperature and salinity gradients. Among these, morphology and tides are generally the dominant factors. This is because winds and river flows are generally low to moderate during much of the year, and salinity and temperature gradients are generally not strong enough to rival tides in their influence on water movement.

Most of these coastal embayments are subject to tidal forcing at their entrances that are highly predictable in terms of both their magnitude and timing. In addition, most embayments in Southern California have length scales that are sufficiently short that the entire embayment rises almost in unison in response to the tide. Under these conditions, the strength of the tidal current at a given location in the embayment becomes primarily a function of the upland tidal prism. The tidal prism is defined as the amount of water that is required to fill the basin for a given increment in tidal increase. By mass conservation, the upland tidal prism for a given location is the amount of water that must pass through that section of the embayment to fill the rest of the embayment beyond that section.

The above approach makes many simplifying assumptions, including the neglect of wind, river flow, temperature and salinity gradients, friction effects and spatial patterns that arise across the section of interest. However, as a means of comparing two tidally influenced coastal embayments, the method provides a good first‐order approach. Ideally, more sophisticated modeling or direct measurements with modern current meters would be undertaken before significant decisions or engineering efforts were to go forward in order to verify the findings.

As a basis of comparison, we take Americas Cup Harbor, a sub‐embayment within San Diego Bay (Figure 1). In this figure, the red line indicated a section approximately mid‐way between the mouth and the head of the harbor, and the green shaded area indicates the areal extent of the upland tidal prism. The upland surface area of this zone is approximately 180000 m2 and a typical tidal range for San Diego Bay is on the order of 2 m. Thus, the upland tidal prism for the mid‐section of Americas Cup Harbor is about 360000 m3. The width of the cross section is about 530 m and the depth is about 5 m, so the cross‐ sectional area is about 2650 m2. Given a slack ebb to slack flood period of about 6 hours, the average cross‐section velocity can be calculated as about 0.6 cm/s. This would be the magnitude of the current expected at the mid‐section of Americas Cup Harbor. To give a sense of how this might influence a boater attempting to moore in that area, if we assume a mooring operation takes about 5 minutes, then the vessel would be subject to about 2 m of drift during that time.

For the case of Newport Bay, we consider the proposed pilot area at Mooring Field C (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows a comparable tidal prism zone (green shaded) for the Mooring Field C area (red line). Based on this location, the upland surface area of this zone is approximately 3164000 m2 and a typical tidal range for Newport Bay is on the order of 2 m. Thus, the upland tidal prism for the mid‐section of Newport Bay is about 6328000 m3. The width of the cross section is about 365 m (including both channels) and the depth is about 4 m, so the cross‐sectional area is about 1460 m2. Given a slack ebb to slack flood period of about 6 hours, the average cross‐section velocity can be calculated as about 20 cm/s. To give a sense of how this might influence a boater attempting to moor in that area, if we assume a mooring operation takes about 5 minutes, then the vessel would be subject to about 60 m of drift during that time. Compared to the Americas Cup Harbor, the estimated currents for the Mooring Field C are in Newport Bay are approximately 32 times higher. These estimates are consistent with the drift measurements made by the Newport Mooring Association, and are also consistent with published measurement by Jeong et al., 2005 (Figure 4).

Citations

Jeong et al., 2005. Identifying Pollutant Sources in Tidally Mixed Systems: Case Study of Fecal Indicator

Bacteria from Marinas in Newport Bay, Southern California, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 9083-9093.

May 21, 2023

Boaters are voters!! Call to Action!  We need your help!  

Protect your mooring location and privileges! 

Please show up to City Council on Tuesday, May 23rd at 5:30pm

Our City Council will be voting on significant harbor code changes and pushing boats and moorings dangerously close together with double-row (tandem) mooring configuration. Here are a just a few of the many NMA Concerns:

1. Safety, Safety, Safety:  Our City Council will be considering a pilot test of this dangerous mooring configuration without the mooring users being provided with a professional test plan developed by professional harbor designers to ensure that mooring users and their vessels will be safe.  To the best of our knowledge, no testing procedures have been publicized for public review.  

At a minimum any test WOULD NEED TO MEASURE THE LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY AND DANGER WHEN GETTING BOTH ON AND OFF MOORINGS IN DIFFERT CURRENT AND WIND CONDITIONS AND FOR PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT PHYSICAL ABILITIES.

We are concerned that the City’s Contract Engineer has issued a special disclaimer that they are NOT ENDORSING THIS MOORING FIELD LAYOUT. This disclaimer leads us to believe there are outstanding safety concerns, and our own tests have shown major safety issues.  We must insist on seeing what is being tested and how it is being tested, so we can provide input if needed.

2. $410,000 Unnecessary Taxpayer Expense - The Harbor Commission is asking for $410k to pilot test the program in the C field.  It is hard to fathom spending this kind of money to “reorganize” a simple mooring field.

3. Why isn’t the City performing initial tests on City owned mooring hardware prior to making significant harbor code changes? The City has an inventory of city owned moorings (including in the C field).They could easily perform preliminary tests with city owned moorings at no cost and without the need to revise the harbor code in advance of a pilot test. As an example, a few years ago, the City tested a mooring concept with City gear near Marina Park without changing the harbor code.

4. Please don’t make harbor code changes in advance of pilot test results: The Harbor Commission has asked for significant harbor code revisions in advance of pilot test results.  These changes include references to “ESTABLISHED MOORING ROW LENGTHS.”  What is an established mooring row length?  Who establishes it?  How is it established?  What boats go where? Why are we making these changes in advance of a pilot test that may not be successful?

5. Transferability of Mooring Permits:  The Harbor Commission is asking to establish a second class of mooring permit related to installing additional City owned moorings.  They have included confusing and ambiguous “non-transferable” language regarding permits issued after a certain date, but at the same time, they refer to a properly transferred permit as new permit.  Without clarification, this could be interpreted to mean that when you transfer your mooring, the new permit holder will not be able to transfer the mooring permit because the City will call his or her permit a “new” permit. So far, the City has not clarified this point.

Also, there is no need for the transferability code change.  The City already rents out an inventory of approximately 30 city owned moorings. If they acquire additional moorings, they can establish the terms of rental or use under a private agreement with the user of the mooring and do not need to change the Harbor Code or create confusing new permit language. 

6. Per Oceanographer Report, Tidal Currents are 32 times stronger in Newport than America’s Cup: The City is importing the double row idea from very protected America’s Cup Harbor where there are no tidal currents. This is not a good idea.

___________________________

IT IS TIME TO ACT! SHOW UP TO CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY May 23rd at 5PM

PROTECT YOUR MOORING LOCATION AND STOP THE UNSAFE TANDEM MOORING PLAN

Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov

Email us at: Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org

Thank you for your anticipated help and support,

Your NMA Directors

May 18, 2023

Attention Mooring Permittees,

The Staff Report and related documents for the May 23rd meeting are listed below for easy download.  The NMA is currently reviewing these documents and will provide comments shortly.

___________________________

IT IS TIME TO ACT! SHOW UP TO CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY May 23rd at 5PM

PROTECT YOUR MOORING LOCATION AND STOP THE UNSAFE TANDEM MOORING PLAN

Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov

Email us at:  Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org

Thank you for your anticipated help and support,

Your NMA Directors

IT IS TIME TO ACT !

PROTECT YOUR MOORING LOCATION AND THE VALUE OF YOUR MOORING

March 14, 2023

Attention Mooring Permittees,

The Harbor Commission has voted to recommend Commissioner Ira Beer’s radical double row mooring plan and associated detrimental Harbor Code changes be approved by City Council – possibly as soon as the next City Council meeting on March 28th. The recommended Harbor Code changes will change the nature of your privately owned mooring tackle and create UNCERTAINTY OF LOCATION FOREVER regardless of the results of the pilot test of the ill-advised and unsafe double row mooring plan.

We are asking all mooring permittees to EMAIL CITY COUNCIL TODAY to object to these RADICAL HARBOR CODE CHANGES related to a mere pilot test of an unpopular mooring row realignment plan.

Through this proposal, a small “Ad Hoc” group of Harbor Commissioners is starting the process of a MAJOR Harbor Master Plan Reorganization that will force the INVOLUNTARY relocation of a high percentage of moorings and boats. We do not think these major changes should be forced on us by a small group of Harbor Commissioners. We believe that any significant mooring field reorganization should be a collaborative effort of all stakeholders.

Here are the primary concerns:

1. CODE CHANGES NOW?? --The Harbor Commission has recommended that City Council pass a host of detrimental Harbor Code changes IN ADVANCE of a pilot test of a dangerous double row mooring plan that has only been used in the ultra-protected harbor of America’s Cup Harbor in San Diego. Why should any changes to the Harbor Code be made now? Are these changes to the Harbor Code their real objective?

2. EXPANDED AUTHORITY to allow the City to make you move your boat and your mooring tackle FOREVER and AT YOUR COST--The existing code allows the Harbormaster to move your boat “when necessary” (i.e., in an emergency). This authority will now be expanded to include nebulous reasons for an involuntary relocationand now will include moving your boat and your mooring tackle at your cost.

3. MOVING AUTHORITY from City Council to the Harbor Commission --The Harbor Commission is asking the City to move mooring equipment mandate authority from our elected City Council down to appointed and unaccountable Harbor Commissioners. This will weaken mooring permittees’ ability to protect our moorings at the ballot box. City Council should not cede this authority given mooring equipment mandates rarely change. This is a power grab.

4. TRANSITIONING OUR PRIVATELY OWNED MOORING EQUIPMENT to “City owned” mooring equipment--The Harbor Commission is asking for authority to transition our privately owned mooring tackle to city owned mooring tackle. Mooring rates will likely increase as the city will want to recoup mooring tackle expenses. This will also increase City liability when incidents occur.

5. GOVERNMENT MANDATED INVOLUNTARY BOAT AND MOORING RELOCATIONS--Regardless of the outcome of the pilot test, the Harbor Commission has recommended moving forward with a new government mandate regarding “Designated Mooring Row Lengths”. Your boat and approved mooring length will now have to match up with an undefined and undetermined Designated Mooring Row MAP(if not, your boat and mooring will be subject to forced relocation). The map was not published with the agenda. This undefined and undisclosed map will be the mechanism the city will use to force INVOLUNTARY mooring relocations. When was this map created? How was it created? How many mooring holders will it impact?

6. TRANSFERABILITY CONCERNS--The proposed new language concerning transferability is still very unclear as it states that “new mooring permits” will not be transferable. Given the fact a person is issued a “new mooring permit” when he or she buys a mooring, that new mooring permit could be deemed to be non-transferable in the future. In response to this concern, proposed objectionable language was not changed and Commissioner Beer has only responded verbally saying that: “Existing permits are transferable. We are not changing transferability for existing permits”. This is clearly not an acceptable explanation. Is the Harbor Commission being obtuse and difficult on this subject for a tactical reason?

7. BUMP YOUR NEIGHBOR EXTENSION PLAN--The mooring length extension policy will now convert to a “Bump Your Neighbor” forced relocation plan. If your new Designated Mooring Row Length is longer than your boat length, you can be bumped and forced to move in favor of a larger boat. If you upsize your vessel even slightly, you will now most likely be forced to move to a different location.

8. MOORING VALUES AT RISK—Several Harbor Commissioners have expressed their outrage in the past at the fact that mooring permits have substantial value. Is the Harbor Commission trying to impact mooring permit values negatively? It sure seems to be a primary objective. 

The NMA has expressed these concerns and they have fallen on deaf ears with the Harbor Commission. The Harbor Commission has maligned the NMA at almost every meeting. This disturbing behavior should be a big wakeup call regarding the fact that these revisions are being crammed down your throat.

___________________________

You can email your thoughts to the Harbor Commission and City Council by using these email addresses – any emails you have already sent to the special email address “HarborFeedback” may not be made part of the official public record.

Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov

Email us at: Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org

Thank you for your anticipated help and support,

Your NMA Directors

Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners

Newport Mooring Association

P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118

March 4, 2023

Attention Mooring Holders,

The Harbor Commission will be voting on the Double Row Mooring Plan and detrimental harbor code revisions on March 8th at 5pm per the posted agenda.  The commission has posted the following document as “Attachment A”.  Here are the NMA concerns and opinions regarding the plan and associated proposed harbor code revisions that involve your safety, property rights, and unknown costs (your pocketbook).

1. The proposal will move your boat without your  consent to an undisclosed location. The location will put  your boat dangerously close to the boat in front or behind your boat. 
2. The Harbor Commission is planning to implement a new undefined “Designated Mooring Row Length” mandate. If your existing approved mooring permit length is too small for the new arbitrary and undefined “designated mooring row length”, you will have to pay to move your mooring tackle to a new and undetermined location.
3. If your existing approved mooring length is more one foot smaller than your “yet to be determined” designated mooring row length, another “more appropriately sized” mooring holder can BUMP YOU from your mooring and you will be forced to relocate.
4. The proposal attempts to give the City authority to replace your privately owned mooring tackle with City tackle. Our mooring rates are low because we own the tackle.  If the City invests in tackle, we are concerned they will increase our rates.
5. The proposed double row system increases risk and difficulty of using a mooring and the pilot test will likely fail.
6. Regardless of the outcome of the pilot test, mooring holders will be stuck with the proposed harbor code revisions for perpetuity.

Please read the following easy-to-read document (Harbor Commission Exhibit A) and the harbor code revisions that are posted on the harbor commission website.  The NMA will be posting additional analysis documents on these topics shortly.  

Please show up on March 8th at 5pm 

Comment/Opinion:  The March 8th Harbor Commission Agenda is now posted. This is a City Document (Exhibit A) that summarizes the intention to gain authority to relocate your personal property.

Mooring Fields Optimization Initiative Summary
 

The mooring fields optimization initiative is intended to result in more efficient use of the space within the City’s mooring fields, increase the number of moorings available to the public, and improve safety and navigation within the fields and in the adjacent channels. With the reconfiguration, the fields will have footprints smaller than they do currently but while having wider fairways and greater average distances between boats in the same row.
 

Reconfiguration of the Mooring Fields
 

1.     Reconfigure the mooring fields from the current single rows to double rows.
Moorings will be substantially the same configuration with two mooring buoys and a spreader line to prevent mooring buoys from drifting into the fairways. Alternatively, mooring 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.     The rows will have established maximum lengths. Permittees will be assigned to moorings in rows that match the permittees’ mooring lengths to the extent possible. Nevertheless, some permittees will end up having to be assigned to rows that are greater than their mooring lengths. In making assignments, efforts will be made to maintain mooring permittees’ general locations within their fields. For example, permittees who currently have an end-tie mooring will be prioritized for assignment to an end-tie mooring.
 

3.     Permittees  whose mooring  lengths  are  shorter  by  5-feet  or  more  than  the designated length of their rows shall be subject to relocation via a mooring exchange (see “Requests for Longer Moorings; Relocations” below). All permittees are subject to being moved when deemed necessary by the Harbormaster to address safety or navigation concerns.
 

4.     Permittees shall be prohibited from exceeding the designated lengths of their rows. No vessel LOA may extend beyond the length of the mooring permit. No vessel adjusted LOA (or any part of the vessel or attachments thereto) may extend into the fairways.
 

5.     For the approximately 10 requests for mooring extensions of up to 5 feet that the City received prior to November 1, 2022, the additional length shall be taken into account when making the new mooring assignments if adequate spacing exists. Pending their new assignments, the permittees may be allowed to extend their mooring lengths if the Harbormaster determines that the requested extensions will not adversely affect navigation, or safety or impede either adjacent fairway.
 

Equipment/Tackle
 

6.     The double mooring rows may consist of one shared anchor or two separate anchors as determined by the City. If a helical type of anchor is used, 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.     Mooring permittees shall bear the responsibility to maintain, repair, and replace all components of the new anchor mooring system, e.g. all weighted anchors, chains, shackles, weights, lines and buoys. The City shall bear the responsibility to maintain, repair, and replace helical anchors it has installed.
 

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

Mooring Permits
 

9.     Any newly-created moorings can be made available to the public at a rent close to fair market value since they would be non-transferable.
 

10.  Moorings would be issued on the basis of a lottery, waiting list, or other similar systems, as determined by the Harbor Department, to afford members of the public an equal opportunity to obtain a permit.
 

11.  If a mooring permittee is assigned to a row of an established length that is greater than the maximum mooring length specified on their permit, the permittee shall not be subject to increased mooring fees unless the permittee desires to moor a larger vessel.
 

12.  The transferability of existing mooring permits will not be affected and they may be successively transferred until they are 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 affect permit transferability. Any mooring permits issued after the adoption date of this ordinance shall be non-transferable.
 

Requests for Longer Moorings; Relocations
 

13.  A mooring permittee who desires a longer or extended mooring will be required to relocate to a larger mooring if the increase in length would exceed the designated length of their row. Relocation will require an available mooring in the same mooring field (the H and J fields shall be considered one field). A mooring is available if it is vacant or occupied by a permittee whose mooring length is at least 5-feet shorter than the designated length of their mooring row.
 

14.  The  Harbormaster  may  approve  extension  requests  upon  making  certain findings.
 

15.  Extension requests shall require payment of a fee.
 

16.  The mooring permittee requesting the extension shall bear all costs of moving both their vessel and the displaced vessel.
 

Pilot Project
 

This mooring reconfiguration initiative proposes to proceed with a pilot project of reconfiguring only the C Field for double-row moorings. During the process, one or two rows may be initially reconfigured. This would allow for testing of the new layout and for making any necessary adjustments. There will be follow-up on the reconfiguration, including regular inspections from harbor patrol boats as well as interviews with affected permittees and other stakeholders. The relocation of moorings and permittees for the first one or two rows is estimated to take two weeks. Completing the reconfiguration for the rest of C Field is estimated to take 30 days.
 

With the success of the pilot project, the next likely fields for reconfiguration would be B, D, J & H.

Commenter Note:  The harbor code revision below (in red) has been proposed by the City. You will be forced to pay for moving your mooring tackle.
 

3. Mooring permittee shall move their vessels or relocate to another mooring when deemed necessary by the Public Works Director and/or Harbormaster to address vessel’s drifting from its assigned mooring location 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). Except as otherwise set forth in this Title, the permittee shall bear the costs of moving their vessel or relocating to the reassigned mooring, including moving the mooring equipment.
________________________

A Summary of NMA’s Opposition to Dangerous New Mooring Reconfiguration, with a short video can be seen at:  www.YourNMA.org - scroll below the Harbor Commission materials.

For sending emails to the Harbor Commissioners and the City Council:

Harbor Commission:  harborcommission@newportbeachca.gov

City Council:  Citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov
 

Please copy us on any email you send to the Harbor Commission or City Council as this help us understand what the City is telling permittees directly.
________________________

FYI: if you are a Newport resident, you might what to look out for our proposed informational meeting at a large conference room on March 16 to inform local homeowners of the impacts of the proposed double row mooring system.
Sincerely,

Your NMA Board of Directors

Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org

January 29, 2023

Dear Onshore and Offshore Mooring Holders,
 

Thank you to all who responded to the NMA Survey regarding the recently proposed double row mooring system.  According to the survey results, the vast majority (97%) of mooring holders are opposed to the double row mooring configuration (148 opposed, 6 in favor as of 01/29/23).
 

Recently, Harbor Commissioners have asked the NMA to offer recommendations to improve the mooring fields.  At the workshop, Monday, January 30th, we will seeking your fresh ideas as well as your feedback on a set of suggestions the NMA has been studying.
 

Marina Park - 2nd Floor Meeting Room
1600 W Balboa Blvd,
Newport Beach, CA 922663
The meeting will start at 5:30pm
 

We are hopeful the Harbor Commission will move away from the double row mooring concept as we believe moving mooring rows closer together will make the moorings more difficult and less safe to use.
 

In terms of the proposed Harbor Code (Title 17) revisions, in recent weeks the Harbor Commission has implied they will be revising the proposed revisions.  We have not received the updated revisions, so we ask all mooring holders to stay tuned on that front.
 

We look forward to a constructive workshop Monday at 5:30pm.
 

Sincerely,
 

Your NMA
visit us at:
YourNMA.org
 

The NMA Directors

Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, 

Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118

Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org
 

November 27, 2022

To all interested parties:

We hope you had a great Thanksgiving.  The NMA has always had a great relationship with the City Council as well as the Harbor Commission in working together to make our Harbor the best it can be for everyone.  We are writing this in an effort to put to rest some rumors and negative information that have circulated regarding the NMA's efforts to alert the public and mooring permit holders of major proposed changes to both the Harbor Code as well as proposals to relocate moorings to within 20 feet of the boat in front of or behind another adjacent moored boat. 

Executive Summary

A. General Observations.

1. The NMA has great concerns regarding the safety of putting boats on moorings within 20 feet of the boat in front of or behind another adjacent moored boat.  

2. The NMA is unaware of any reported accidents or near accidents which would require such a radical and unsafe change.

3. The comparison to the Americas Cup Harbor configuration, which is located in a harbor within a harbor that experiences very little current and very low winds even in Santa Ana conditions.  Americas Cup Harbor in San Diego cannot be compared to Newport Harbor, which has much greater currents and the occasional Santa Ana winds that do not remotely compare to Americas Cup Harbor.  It is noted that the double row configuration has been in place in Americas Cup Harbor for over 40 years, and yet in over 40 years San Diego has not attempted to use this configuration in any other part of their harbor.

4.  The proposed plan is not required by any Harbor Marina Standards.  Harbor Marina Standards specifically are written for and apply only to marinas.   They do not apply, and should not apply, to a mooring field.  Maneuvering a boat inside a marina with fixed docks, that may require a boat to back up or turn around within a marina fairway, is totally different than securing a boat to a mooring with open fairways on either side of the mooring and no fixed structures.  In a mooring field, if you miss your buoy when attempting to moor, you can just go to the fairway ahead and come around to try again.  In a marina, if you miss your slip, you will need to back up or turn around within an enclosed fairway or you will crash into the dock.  Marina fairways need to be bigger than mooring fairways.

5.   Giving the Harbormaster or the Harbor Commission the power to permanently move boats or moorings in the name of any plan of realignment, now or in the future, without City Council approval, and without other checks and balances makes no sense, and it also creates distressing uncertainty for mooring permittees and those who enjoy existing harbor views.

6.   If the City is to issue "New Permits," the NMA has requested that ambiguities about what will be considered a "new permit" as it applies to transferability, must be clearly defined so that permits being transferred, permits adding a second name, and filling out a periodic questionnaire about your boat, is not considered the creation of a "new permit."  Moreover, there is no reason to alter the Harbor Code regarding "new permits" and transferability as it relates to "new permits" until such time as the City has developed a large number of new moorings and then, and only then, the City can decide if they will be rented, sold, or given away.

B.  Accusations of False and Misleading Statements.

The NMA has been accused of making false and misleading statements regarding the proposed new mooring configuration plan, the proposed changes to Title 17, and regarding the Harbor Commission’s lack of prior notice and meetings for input from stakeholders. The detailed facts are shown in the timeline below, and show the following:

1.   The Proposed Plan to Change the Harbor Code in major ways, including providing giving the Harbormaster the right to move boats anywhere in the harbor (now changed to anywhere within a mooring field), was seen for the first time in the agenda for the October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission meeting, not 30 months before, not 4 months before, not 4 weeks before.  

2.  The Proposed concept to move boats to within 20 feet of each other bow to bow, with a single shared helix anchor system, was shown as a concept for the first time at the June 8, 2022 Harbor Commission meeting, not 30 months before.

3.  The concept on June 8 was unsupported by any completed engineering study, which would have confirmed such an anchor system would work, and the NMA requested the engineering report for review prior to being able to comment on the entire plan.

4. A draft engineering report was sent to the NMA on September 26, with the final report sent on September 30, just two weeks prior to the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting.

5. The NMA’s alert to mooring holders and the public was completely accurate, and contained no false or misleading statements:

• The plan would put boats within 20 feet of a boat in front of or behind another boat.
• The proposed changes to the Harbor Code would allow the Harbormaster to move boats permanently anywhere in the harbor (which has subsequently been changed to anywhere in a mooring field).
• The proposed changes to the Harbor Code, as stated, state that “new moorings” are not transferable, and create an ambiguity that needs to be cleared up as it is possible to misinterpret.
• Rather than set “guidelines” for mooring extensions, the proposed changes to the Harbor Code would eliminate mooring extensions and instead substitute an unclear idea of moving boats or exchanging moorings.

End of Executive Summary

______________________________________________________________________  

Detailed Facts and Timeline

Background Concerns

Regarding the proposed mooring relocation plan, we have great concerns that this will present major safety issues when attempting to secure a boat to a mooring.   The proposed double row configuration has almost never been the accepted design anywhere in California, with the single exception of the very small, protected harbor within a harbor known as the Americas Cup Harbor within San Diego Harbor.  The very sheltered Americas Cup Harbor, a harbor within a harbor, and very unlike Newport Harbor in configuration, has very little current and much lighter winds than both Newport Harbor and the greater San Diego Harbor.  In over 40 years, San Diego has not attempted to replicate the double row configuration in any other part of San Diego where the current and winds conditions are much more in line with Newport Harbor.  The proposed plan appears to be a solution looking for a problem.  We are unaware of any history of accidents in relation to the current configuration.  While there are a few areas within some mooring fields that are crowded, the plan does not address just these few areas, but is looking to relocate almost 600 moorings.   

The current mooring design layout does not violate any of the City's design standards.  Mooring fields are very different from marinas as marinas contain fixed docks.  This is a very fundamental difference.  In a marina containing fixed docks, it is the norm for boats to "back up" into fairways.  In a failed attempt to enter a slip, a skipper will be forced to back up into the fairway before trying another attempt to enter his slip.  Unlike confronting a fixed dock with no room around the fixed dock, on an approach to a mooring the skipper has the option to maneuver his boat past the pickup line or buoy, go into the next fairway, and then come around again to try another mooring attempt.  There is no backing up required because there is no fixed dock in front of you.  Fairways in mooring fields can be narrower than those found in marinas.

Regarding the proposed changes to the City's Harbor Code, here's just one example of the NMA's concerns.

The Harbormaster currently is allowed to move a boat for necessity.  Historically, it has been used for such purposes as dredging and has been done on a very temporary basis.  One major proposed change to the Harbor code is to allow boats to be moved permanently anytime someone comes up with a "plan of realignment."   If this change were made, there is no stated requirement that any plan of realignment, now or in the future, would require City Council approval.  As currently drafted, there are no stated checks and balances written into the proposed changes to the code such as stakeholder meetings, including permit holders and homeowners whose water views may be affected, with the uncertainty that this may happen time and again in the future, or allowances for different types of moorings such as end of row locations etc."  

The NMA has been actively attempting to bring to the attention of the public and to permit holders the proposed changes, and in doing so, has been confronted with rumors attacking NMA's efforts to alert the public.  We would like to set the record straight about our efforts to bring to light what had been, and what is currently in, these proposals. We are not addressing the substance of the proposals today, we are only addressing the false and misleading rumors about the NMA's efforts so far. We hope you can find the time to read our rebuttal to these rumors.   

The “false and misleading” accusations began at the October 12, 2022 Harbor Commission meeting following the NMA’s alert sent to mooring permit holders that the Harbor Commission may be voting on recommending changes to the Harbor Code, and may also be voting on the adoption of a radical and controversial mooring realignment plan which would, if passed, make extremely significant changes to both the Harbor Code and the configuration of mooring fields in Newport Harbor.  

The NMA’s alert to its membership noted a number of items of concern which include:

1. A plan to eliminate many fairways and the placing of moored boats within 20 feet of each other bow to bow, or bow to stern.

2. Giving the Harbormaster the authority to move boats almost anywhere without checks and balances, and without City Council approval, both in relation to the new experimental plan and any future proposed plan in the name of “realignment.”

3. Language in the plan that would eliminate transferability for “New Permits”, but which did not define or clarify when a permit is considered a “New Permit”, and the need to eliminate any ambiguity on this point, for example does the filling out of the periodic mooring questionnaire result in a new permit each time it is filled out, or the adding of a second name to a permit, or the transfer to a new person?  We have asked that these ambiguities be cleared up. 

4. A plan to eliminate allowing any future mooring extensions as seen for the first time in the October 12 Title 17 proposed changes.

The NMA noted in its bulletin that the Harbor Commission had not met with the NMA to discuss these proposed Title 17 changes, which were in fact seen for the first time just a few days before the scheduled October 12 Harbor Commission meeting, and other matters.

The timeline below presents a factual timeline of what has taken place since June 8, 2022, and following the timeline is the NMA’s rebuttal to the accusations.

Timeline

Prior to June 8, 2022, neither the plan to put boats within 20 feet bow to bow, or bow to stern, was ever seen, nor were there any discussions to change Title 17 in major ways related to any plan of realignment, a proposal to allow the Harbor Master the right to move boats or moorings, without City Council approval, in the name of a plan of realignment.

The NMA acknowledges that the Harbor Commission had previously added an “Objective” which stated:  

“Finalize a new Harbor Policy H-3 to set guidelines for approving mooring extension requests by mooring permittees, and better defining the rows and fairways within the mooring fields for improved navigation, safety and optimization of space.”

However, the NMA is not aware of any efforts made by the Commission to set up any meetings with the public or with the NMA to discuss “guidelines” for “better defining rows and fairways” or to discuss “guidelines” for handling extension requests.   Just because the Harbor Commission has had set for itself an objective vaguely stating it wanted to look into settling “guidelines” for rows and fairways does not mean that there had been any discussion or dialog with the public regarding what they might have had in mind in reference to “setting guidelines.” 

As will be demonstrated below, the NMA takes great issue with the suggestion by Commissioner Beer that the Harbor Commission and the NMA have “actively engaged in dialogue over the past 4 years that I am aware of “ [regarding these proposals].

The following are all dates in 2022

June 8

Plan (but no suggested changes to Title 17) is shown for first time with (a) boats moved to within 20 feet of each other, and (b) use of joint helix anchor system.  The conceptual plan did not include any changes to Title 17 and did not have results of any engineering studies regarding the holding power of the required helix anchor system.  There was no discussion of changes to the safety of getting on and off moorings in various conditions and locations.

June 14 

NMA requests the engineering study and asks if the plan is in the conceptual stage.  NMA wants to see the completed engineering study before looking into the plan or making comments on the plan to its members.  The NMA believed it was premature to alert members if the use of shared anchor system was not supported by the engineering study, and it was not a good idea to make comments on the new plan one piece at a time. 

June 28 

Commissioner Beer responds that the “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.”

July 6

NMA responds to Commission Beer: “I appreciate your response to my question.  Just so I understand exactly, your proposal for the mooring field reconfiguration is only 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.”

July 6 

Commissioner Beer responds: “As mentioned in my last email, the engineering study is not completed.  However, it is well underway.  While the financial aspect is yet another conversation, the engineering study when completed will be discussed at a regular Harbor Commission meeting and will be open to public comment as such time.”

September 26/30

Commissioner Beer sent the draft engineering report to the NMA.  The report appears to address the holding power of the proposed new anchoring system, but did not address ease of, or difficulty of, or safety of, getting on or off a mooring with boats 20 feet apart using the joint shared anchor system.  The final engineering report on the holding power is sent to the NMA on September 30.

In his September 26 email, Commissioner Beer provides the following assurance to the NMA:

“Attached herewith please find a copy of the initial 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.”  

This appears to be assurance that these matters will be up for discussion only, and not up for a vote.

October 7

The agenda is posted for the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting, showing for the first time major changes to Title 17, which includes the right of the Harbormaster, in the name of realignment, to move boats (and perhaps moorings) anywhere in the harbor, and also has unclear language about transferability and what is and is not a “New Permit.” 

In addition, and contrary to the assurance provided in the September 26 email that the plan would be agendized for public comment, the plan is agendized for both public comment and for possible vote. 

October 10

NMA informs its members regarding (a) the specific conceptual plan and (b) the proposed changes to Title 17, seen for the first time and which could be voted on in a few days. Changes to Title 17, posted for the first time would have given the Harbormaster or the Harbor Commission the right to move boats or moorings in the name of realignment permanently, or multiple times in the future without City Council approval, and without any limitations or conditions. 

October 12

Harbor Commission Meeting is held where:

1. NMA is accused of “false and misleading statements”.
2. It is suggested that the NMA has known about these proposals for 30 months or more, or at least since the June meeting.
3. It is suggested that the NMA should have commented on the plan shown in June and alerted its members about the plan, even though the NMA did not have the engineering study until September 26 and did see the proposed changes to Title 17 until October 7.
4. It was stated that transferability was not an issue and would be clarified in a new version of Title 17 changes
5. The vote would be postponed, and the Sub-Committee would meet with the NMA to discuss the NMA’s concerns before the next meeting. 

October 13

NMA sends emails to the Commissioners addressing what it considers false allegations that the NMA had made any “false and misleading statements.” No acknowledgement of receipt is sent by any Commissioner.

October 17

Commissioner Beer sends an email to all City Council members as well as to various staff accusing the NMA of “false and misleading statements.” The allegations sent by Commissioner Beer to the City Council and others appears in the November 9 packet made available to the public.

October 20

Commissioner Beer, together with Harbormaster Paul Blank, met with two NMA board members Jerry LaPointe and Scott Karlin. Various matters are discussed.  Commissioner Beer states he is working on and has almost completed some changes that will be in a new Title 17 revision. 

Commissioner Beer states he will get the NMA the revised Title 17 proposal but needs our comments and any proposed changes by the end of the day, October 26. 

Scott Karlin asks for his personal assurance that he will recommend that there will not be a vote at the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting to allow time for study, comments and stakeholder meetings.  Commission Beer says he will not provide such assurance.  Mr. Karlin states that without that assurance the NMA will be obligated to inform its members that the changes to Title 17, as well as the plan to move boats and moorings, will likely be voted on at the Harbor Commission meeting on November 9.

October 24

Commissioner Beer sends a revised proposal regarding Title 17 changes to the NMA approximately at noon and gives the NMA two days to provide its comments and suggested changes. 

October 26

With only two days of notice, the NMA sends a 24-page document to all Harbor Commission members with its comments and suggested changes to the proposed Title 17 modifications.  The NMA again requests assurance that there will not be a vote on November 9 to avoid having to alert its members of such a vote.  

October 28

NMA receives an email from Commissioner Beer stating in part that he will not recommend postponement of vote.

October 28- Nov 4

There is no response from Commissioner Beer or any other Harbor Commission member regarding the substantive and specific recommended changes and proposals by the NMA to the Title 17 revisions which the NMA sent on October 26 to all Harbor Commission members.

NMA waits to see the new language that will be in the November 4 agenda before sending any alerts to its members.

November 4

Commissioner Beer sends a copy of new revised Title 17 changes.  The NMA sees that none of the NMA proposed changes from its 24-page proposal were incorporated in the revision. The City also publishes the agenda for the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting and includes comments by the public as part of the exhibits. 

The City’s published agenda, which includes the proposals and the received public comments and emails, does not include the NMA’s detailed 24-page comments and changes which was sent to the entire Harbor Commission on October 26. 

November 7

NMA alerts its members of the November 9 Harbor Commission meeting, of the issues and concerns, and notes that a vote may take place.  The NMA outlines the provisions in the Title 17 changes of most concern.

November 8

The NMA resends the 24-page detailed document of comments and suggested modifications to the proposed changes to Title 17 that it had previously sent to the Harbor Commission on October 26, because it had been left out of the agenda package.

November 9

Harbor Commission meeting.

At the meeting some members of the Harbor Commission again accuse the NMA of false and misleading statements.  No explanation is provided why the NMA’s 24-page document of detailed comments and suggested modifications to Title 17 was not included in the City’s agenda package.

Various people present ask for specific references to what these so-called false statements were. 

Some Commissioners state they will rely on procedure and will not give specifics. 

NMA is not given the opportunity to rebut any of these vague allegations.

One commissioner stated that he had only received the NMA comments and suggested modifications “two days ago” for the “first time.”  No explanation was provided why he might not have seen the NMA’s detailed package sent on October 26 to the Harbor Commission, and no explanation was provided why it had not been included in the agenda packet prepared and published by the City on November 4.

End of Timeline

Detailed Response to Claim that NMA has made False and Misleading Statements. 

In the NMA’s October 10 notice to its membership, who for the most part do not read posted City agendas but rely on the NMA to send alerts on major issues, we addressed four major concerns.  At the Harbor Commission meeting we were criticized for having alerted our members to these items.  In fact, it was stated that our alert was for the most part “false and misleading.”  Other Commissioners repeated this idea.  We assume that those who repeated this theme possibly assumed what they hear from others was true.  In our public comments we attempted to address the substantive issues contained in the proposed changes to Title 17.  Given the “3-minute rule” we did not attempt to set the record straight regarding the notice we had sent to our members and the email we had sent to the Commission.  As such, the Commissioners only heard a one-sided rendition, and did not hear the facts or see the timeline detailed here in this document. 

Relationships do matter. The NMA has had a great working relationship with the Harbor Commission and City staff since its inception.  The last few years have been an exception to this long history, and we would like to put that behind us. 

As a first step, we wish to address the criticism of the Board’s alert to our members and what we set forth in the email we sent to the Commission prior the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting. 

Our alert to mooring holders let them know of the following proposals:

1.  A proposal to move boats close to the boat in front of it and to eliminate the fairway between the two boats.   We do not believe this to be either false or misleading.   It is in fact the proposal under discussion.   It is the NMA’s responsibility to notify mooring holders and allow them the opportunity to discuss any safety concerns they might have with such a proposal.  We feel that it would have been irresponsible of us if we failed to alert our members and failed to bring to the attention of everyone our concerns for safety.  

2.  A proposal that would allow boats to be moved for any length of time anywhere in the harbor, to accommodate any plan of realignment, now or in the future.  We do not believe this was a false or misleading statement. Subsequent to this alert, the plan was changed to allow moving boats anywhere within a mooring field but now treating the H field and J field as one field.  While the current wording of Title 17 simply states that where necessary, boats (not moorings) can be moved.  In our view the key word is “necessary”, and it has been interpreted that way for as long as anyone can remember.  The proposed change to Title 17, would radically change that to specifically state that “necessary” now includes moving boats to make some fairways wider, to eliminate other fairways, or for other realignment purposes.  That’s a disguised way of giving the Harbormaster, for the first time in history, the right to move boats anywhere in the name of “realignment.”  This could be done in relation to the current plan, or in relation to any future plan and as often as they would like, and all without City Council approval.  We feel that it would have been irresponsible of us to fail to alert our members to this radical proposed change that would for the first time in history give the Harbor Master such power without any checks and balances, and without City Council approval in relation to each and every plan of realignment.

3.  A Proposal to Possibly Terminate Transferability.  As we pointed out in an email to the Commission, the language used in the proposed changes to Title 17, did not clearly define what was considered a “newly created mooring” that had never existed before, and did not clearly define an existing mooring.  The concern is highlighted in a situation following a transfer.  If there is any ambiguity, someone might argue that the permit issued to the transferee was now a “new permit.”   That’s why we stated “Possibly,” as the point needed to be clarified.  In the NMA’s email to the Commission, this possibility was specifically explained, and we even proposed language that would clarify the point.  In Vice Commissioner Beer’s remarks at the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting, he noted that a point of clarification might be appropriate.  Given the history of prior battles and sensitively over this issue, we felt that it would have been irresponsible of us to look the other way and allow the possible ambiguity to become part of the proposed new changes which included the language “moorings are not transferable” with the stated exception that did not define an existing mooring, to include the transferee of an existing mooring. The current proposed language is very unclear.   

4. A Proposal to Permanently Eliminate All Mooring Extensions.  We do not believe this to be a false or misleading statement.  For three years a significant number of mooring holders had been waiting to extend the length of their moorings to accommodate a larger boat.  The NMA has not taken a position on any particular request. Title 17 was recently changed and addressed this matter.  It provided the Harbormaster with the authority to allow 5-foot extensions without input from the Harbor Commission.  The people waiting were told to be patient, and that their extension request was under consideration.  The proposed changes to Title 17 actually removes any possibility of any mooring extension in the future, even extending a 30-foot mooring which is currently in a 50-foot row.  The permanent elimination of mooring extensions in the proposed Title 17 changes is a radical departure from the current code that allows the Harbor Master to look at each request for a 5-foot increase on a case-by-case basis.  We have taken no position on any individual situation, but it was our duty to bring this proposed change to the attention of our members.   We understand that as part of the new concept there might be some possible opportunity to find a larger mooring, but that would involve a lot of “ifs”, and this all needed to be brought to the attention of at least the people who had been waiting for years on their extension requests.

The above 4 points were presented to mooring holders as matters of interest and concern.  If bringing these matters to the attention of our members is inappropriate in the eyes of some, then the NMA takes full responsibility.  The NMA however feels it was its duty to alert its membership and all mooring permittees to these issues, and to not do so in clear simple language would have been a disservice to both our members and to the public.

The NMA was also criticized for saying that “we had not met with the Commissioners” regarding these proposed changes.  Not only had we not met with any Commissioner regarding what was being proposed in the changes to Title 17, the first time the NMA even saw the proposed changes to Title 17 was just a few days before the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting.  We were never provided with an advanced copy of the proposed changes to Title 17, and prior to the October 12 meeting, no offer was made to meet and discuss these proposed major changes to Title 17.

As to the particular plan of reconfiguration (versus the Changes to Title 17 – which concerned many other matters), that draft concept was first presented at the June 8, 2022, Harbor Commission meeting.  However, as noted in the timeline, it was stated to be conceptual and the NMA was waiting for the complete plan with the engineering before it would take the time to study the plan.  The engineering was not sent to the NMA until the end of September, and there was no time to meet with anyone prior to a review of the full plan before the October 12 Harbor Commission meeting.  The statement that the Commission had not met with the NMA prior to the October 12 Harbor Commission was neither false or misleading.  Time was needed to study the plan, as well as the Title 17 changes which were presented for the first time just a few days before October 12 Harbor Commission meeting. 

At the November Harbor Commission meeting, one Commissioner stated that he had seen the NMA’s proposals and suggested changes “for the first time” only two days before the November 9 meeting.  However, these extensive comments and proposed changes were sent to each and every commissioner on October 26, not two days prior to the November 9 meeting.

We want to dispel the idea that the NMA acted in any way contrary to the interest of its members by alerting them to each of the above 4 major issues which might impact them, or somehow provided only last-minute proposals and comments to the Harbor Commission.  

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.  We look forward to moving ahead in a constructive way in keeping this beautiful harbor safe and enjoyable to everyone.

The NMA Directors

 Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, 

Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118

Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org


 

 WE NEED YOUR HELP!   PLEASE  show up to the Harbor Commission Meeting on at 5pm on Wednesday November 9th at the Council Chambers: 100 Civic Center Dr, Newport Beach

November 7, 2022 - To all Stakeholders - 

The Harbor Commission is planning on voting for radical changes in both the City’s Harbor Code Title 17, giving themselves exclusive rights to manage boats on the moorings, and fundamentally changing the way moorings are configured in the harbor, without City Council approval.

The NMA believes that the changes to Title 17 are unnecessary and take away mooring owner rights, and the mooring reconfiguration plan needs serious review, and Stakeholder meetings are required for both. Clearly it is premature to recommend changes to the harbor code in advance of a pilot test of an unproven mooring system.

1. Mooring owners and waterfront homeowners have had little notice to review the proposed changes. 

Here are the facts:

A. When did the stakeholders have notice of the Title 17 changes that, among other things, would allow the Commission to permanently move boats and/or moorings around as often as they like for what they call "realignment" without any restrictions, as often as they like, now and in the future? 

The short answer is not for 30 months, but only a few days before the October 2022 Harbor Commission meeting.

B. When did the stakeholders see the specific plan that would move almost all boats on moorings and put 2 boats within 20 feet of the boat ahead, sharing a single anchor, with the supporting engineering study? 

The short answer is the concept was shown at the June 2022 Harbor Commission meeting, but we were told to wait to see the engineering supporting study, which was not available until October, again, not 30 months.

Please refer to the timeline at the end of this letter. This is excerpted from the Harbor Commission Meeting Minutes. You can also refer to our regular updates shown on this webpage as well which show when materials were presented.

2. Harbor Commission is proposing a major change to Title 17, giving themselves the power to permanently move boats and moorings to new locations, now and in the future, without City Council Approval.

We need stakeholder meetings and robust public engagement before moving forward on the significant Harbor Code and mooring field layout changes.  There have been NO PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER meetings with robust public engagement.  

3. Waterfront homeowners, who may lose home values by loss of views with much tighter mooring spacing, have had no input. 

The NMA wants to be good neighbors and are mindful that homeowners should also have input. Stakeholders should include homeowners who may end up with more obstructed views. Pushing rows of moorings within 20 feet of one another will pinch and impede public views from boardwalks. Homeowners may want input on conditions, and checks and balances. No homeowner will know if his or her home will have a better or worse view under this plan, which appears to give the Harbor Commission the power to impact value to their homes by obscuring or enlarging their water views, without City Council approval and without any restrictions.

4. The proposed language amending Title 17 is confusing and leads to conflicting results. 

The suggested language on the proposed changes appears to have been done in haste. The confusion in moving boats vs moving moorings creates a lot of confusion and ambiguities. The NMA offered some last-minute changes to the language help sort this out. None of the suggestions were adopted, and the language remains unclear. 

There cannot be a vote until all the details and technical language are sorted out in a responsible and professional manner and with real meetings with stakeholders. These major changes cannot be rushed.

5. Transferability remains a question. 

At the last Harbor Commission meeting, we were told that for all existing permit holders, transferability was not at issue and the proposed changes would be modified to make that clear. Following the NMA meeting with just one member of the subcommittee, the NMA did not see any meaningful change that eliminated the ambiguities on transferability. Therefore, as requested, the NMA on just two days’ notice, provided language to clarify the ambiguities, including language that simply stated:

(A) Upon transfer the permit issued to the new person was not a “New Permit” and 

(B) By filling out the yearly Information Sheet now being sent, does not result in the creation of a New Permit every year, and

(C) Adding a second name to an existing permit did not result in a transfer or a new permit. 

These simple changes were consistent with what we were told at the last Harbor Commission meeting that transferability by existing permit holders, as well as by their transferees, was still allowed, and was not an issue. These simple changes designed to eliminate any ambiguity were not added to the changes to the latest redlined version Title 17. Permit holders cannot rely on “verbal” assurances that these rights will still exist without them being clearly codified in Title 17.

6. The proposed mooring plan needs expert technical review, stakeholder input, and an extended trial period.

The Harbor Commission has offered no credible evidence that the mooring fields are currently a safety hazard.  This is a “solution looking for a problem.” A plan that forces a mooring permittee to approach a mooring in a downwind fashion is dangerous given our prevailing winds. It is common knowledge that a captain has more control of the boat when approaching into the wind. Less control is less safe.

Pushing alternate mooring rows within 20 feet of the row in front or behind will a mooring permittee less space to maneuver and less reaction time.  This is less safe than the existing configuration.

A mooring plan that adds additional moorings will not result in more open water, it will result in less open water. The proposal to widen one fairway only reduces the alternate fairway width. The current fairways have been safe for mooring access and safe from small vessels such as SUPs and Kayaks. The Coast Guard Definition for Special Anchorage (AKA Mooring Field) actually discourages establishing mooring fields near fairways. It is not safe to encourage navigation through these Special Anchorages. 

___________________________

Again, there cannot be a vote until all the details and technical language is sorted out in a responsible and professional manner and with real meetings with stakeholders. These major changes cannot be rushed.

We know you all have busy schedules, and this is short notice, but if you can come to the meeting, please join us and let your thoughts be known.

You can email your thoughts to the Harbor Commission and City Counsel by using these email addresses – any emails you have already sent to the special email address “HarborFeedback” may not be made part of the official public record. 

Email Harbor Commissioners: HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov

Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov

Email us at:  Mail@YourNMA.org or Mail@YourNewportMooringAssocation.org

Donations welcome - please see our donations section below this email.
or send your check to our address below.

Thank you for your help and support,
 

Your NMA Directors

Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners

Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mail@NewportMooringAssociation.org


 

PLEASE  show up to the Harbor Commission Meeting on at 5pm on Wednesday November 9th at the NB Council Chambers: 100 Civic Center DR Newport Beach

November 2, 2022.  The Harbor Commission will be voting on a controversial and INVOLUNTARY mooring relocation plan WITHOUT HOSTING ONE SINGLE PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER MEETING.  The plan involves moving mooring rows closer together and implementing a bow-to-bow/shared anchor system. The new system will make it more difficult to get on and off your mooring and 50% of mooring permittees will have to access their mooring in a downwind and less safe fashion.

The only example the City has provided where a bow-to-bow mooring system is utilized is America’s Cup Harbor which is tucked in behind Shelter Island in San Diego Harbor. America’s Cup Harbor is perhaps the most protected marina in Southern California as it is almost fully encircled by land and lies within protected San Diego Harbor. It is a very protected “harbor within a harbor”. It is obvious to an experienced mariner that the conditions in America’s Cup Harbor do not compare to the prevailing wind and currents we experience in Newport Harbor rendering it a useless comparison.

Even more concerning, are the PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE HARBOR CODE (Title 17) which will be voted on as well. The proposed revisions presented on October 12th will give the harbormaster unilateral authority to relocate your boat on a permanently without your consent and AGAINST YOUR WILL and AT YOUR EXPENSE. Below is just one of the problematic revisions to the harbor code that was presented on October 12th.

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 Including but not limited to increasing and improving the utilization of the mooring fields, and agree that such relocation shall be at the permittee's expense.

There are more equally concerning proposed revisions to the harbor code that broaden Harbor Commission authority, change how allowable boat lengths are determined and eliminate the possibility of mooring extensions. As they say: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS and READ THE FINE PRINT!

The Newport Mooring Association STRONGLY OPPOSES the proposed mooring plan and proposed harbor code revisions and makes the following requests:

1. Public Engagement/Stakeholder Meetings: Prior to making changes to the harbor code and mooring alignment, best practices call for the City to host a series of public stakeholder meetings in order for stakeholders to better understand where their boats will be involuntarily relocated and how it impacts their existing shoreline accessibility and safety. Brief updates at sparsely attend Commission meetings simply don’t cut it. 

2. VOLUNTARY not INVOLUNTARY: A pilot test of a new mooring system should be on a voluntary basis. We have a few NMA members that are willing to allow the city to test the new proposal with their boats on a voluntary basis. 

3. NO CHANGES TO HARBOR CODE at this time: By testing a new mooring system on a voluntary basis, there is no need to make unnecessary changes to the Harbor Code/Title 17 at this time.

Many of us are NB residents and voters. Numbers Count! Spread the word to attend on November 9thand email your concerns directly to our elected City Council.
 

You can email your thoughts to the Harbor Commission and City Counsel by using these email addresses:
Email Harbor Commissioners: HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov
Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov
 

email us at:  Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org
Donations welcome at:  https://newportmooringassociation.org/membership
or send your check to our address below. 

This Wednesday- October 12, 5pm at City Hall
 

We know this is a last minute email, but the NMA has just seen and reviewed the Harbor Commission Agenda.
 

Here what is on the Agenda and related items.
1.  A Proposal to Move Your Boat within a few feet of the boat in front of you -  You read that right, they want to eliminate the fairway, and put your boat right next to the boat in front of yours, so you will no longer have room to safely get onto and off your mooring in all conditions.  It is our view that only the mooring holders understand how to safely secure their boats on and off moorings in different wind and tide conditions.  The Harbor Commission needs to hear from you.
 

2.  A Second Proposal to Move You Boat Across the Harbor - This is a proposal to radically change title 17 of the City Code and allows the Harbor Commission, without your approval, to move any boat you have on your mooring to some other location in the harbor, and for any length of time, be it 1 week or 5 years.  They can do so for any reason, including creating new rows of boats of similar length even if it means putting your boat halfway across the harbor.
 

3.  A Proposal to Possibly Terminate Transferability- The proposals to change title 17 do not distinguish the rights of a person acquiring a mooring permit, from the rights of a person who would acquire a "newly created" mooring.
 

4.  A Proposal to Permanently Eliminate All Mooring Extensions-  even if, for example a mooring that is 30 ft in length is currently in a row where all the other moorings are 50 feet in length, all contrary to the existing City Code.
 

  These proposed changes to Title 17 have been pushed forward under the guise of implementing a potentially dangerous new mooring system/optimization plan involving putting two boats right next to each other, as if they were on slips and not in open water, and having them sharing a single mooring anchor. To avoid a collision with the boat in front of you, with the new system a boat will somehow now have to pick up a mooring line by hanging over the bow (while at the same time somehow keep steering the boat), vs being in a safe mid-ship position, no matter the wind or tide.
 

The obvious danger to life, limb, and property, does not seem to be understood by the Harbor Commission. In short, current Commissioner Beer has proposed pushing the mooring rows closer together which will make the moorings difficult to get on with any wind or current creating a dangerous situation for all of us.
 

The Harbor Commission has not met with the NMA on any of this, and what is more concerning is that most of these proposals do not say they are just ideas to be discussed but could possibly be voted on after providing only a few days notice (which almost nobody ever sees, let alone has time to study).
 

We know you have a busy schedule, and this is all last minute notice for you and us, but if you can make it alone or with your spouses and kids, please join us and let your thoughts be known.
 

We also encourage you to email members of the Harbor Commission, the City Council
and cc the NMA.
 

Your Newport Mooring Association
 

You can email your thoughts to the Harbor Commission and City Counsel by using these email addresses:
Email Harbor Commissioners: HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov
Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov
 

email us at:  Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org
Donations welcome at:  https://newportmooringassociation.org/membership
or send your check to our address below. 

IT IS TIME TO ACT! SHOW UP TO CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY May 23rd at 5PM

PROTECT YOUR MOORING LOCATION AND STOP THE UNSAFE TANDEM MOORING PLAN

May 16, 2023 

Attention Mooring Permittees,

The City Council will be voting on pilot test and implementation of a dangerous double-row/tandem mooring plan and associated detrimental Harbor Code changes on May 23rd. While the pilot test will put private boats at increased risk of collision, the recommended Harbor Code changes will change the nature of your privately owned mooring tackle and create UNCERTAINTY OF MOORING LOCATION FOREVER regardless of the results of the pilot test of the ill-advised and unsafe double-row/tandem mooring plan.

The Newport Mooring Association has obtained an Oceanographer report indicating tidal currents are 32 TIMES STRONGER in Newport Harbor compared to America’s Cup Harbor, where the double-row/tandem configuration is utilized. With your help, we believe the NMA can convince City Council that pushing mooring rows closer together in Newport Harbor will decrease safety and increase the difficulty of mooring utilization given the strong currents and prevailing winds.

In reviewing City documents, it appears the City’s Coastal Engineer (Noble Consultant) has not endorsed the double-row/tandem layout. In fact, the engineering firm has made specific disclaimers indicating they take no responsibility for this mooring layout or configuration. This gives us the impression that the professionals are not willing to sign off on the double-row/tandem configuration in Newport because they know it is less safe and more difficult to use given the environmental conditions (wind and current) in Newport Harbor.

Note from Noble Consultants (City’s Contract Engineer) helix anchor report dated 9/20/22: DISCLAIMER The mooring layout and anchor spacing for this project was not conceived or endorsed by Noble Consultants, Inc. nor its staff Engineers.

Email your local council member today and express your concern regarding the unsafe double-row (tandem) mooring configuration as well as the unnecessary changes to the harbor code that will allow the Harbor Commission to force you to move your boat and mooring at your expense with ad hoc mooring layout decisions.

___________________________

You can email your thoughts to the Harbor Commission and City Council by using these email addresses – any emails you have already sent to the special email address “HarborFeedback” may not be made part of the official public record.

Email City Council Members: CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov

Email us at:  Mail@NewportMooringAssocation.org

Thank you for your anticipated help and support,

Your NMA Directors

Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners

Newport Mooring Association

P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118

August 10, 2022 - This is an alert that the Harbor Commission is poised to change your ability to sell/transfer your moorings. At the June Harbor Commission meeting, Commissioner Cunningham presented slides questioning the ability to transfer moorings.  The idea was presented at the June 14th meeting at last moment rather than in advance as generally required for proper public review.

We are dumbfounded as to why the Harbor Commission is reviewing transferability, given this issue was settled after lengthy debate and council meetings in 2017. Given the fact that all other City permits for tidelands use are transferable, including residential pier permits and commercial marina permits, the Harbor Commission is, once again, singling out only moorings, and targeting the transferability of mooring permits. Keep in mind this comes on the heels of a City recommendation to raise mooring fees by over 1,000%. Key persons on the Harbor Commission appear to be conducting a war on moorings, and this needs to stop.

We need your help. Here's how:

1. Call and email your opposition of the current mooring transferability review:

City Council Members and the City Manager - one email will reach all members and the City Manager:   CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov  or call 949-644-3004.

Email the Harbor Commission Members - one email will reach all members: HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov

2. We desperately need you to contribute an extra $50, $100, $200, or as much as you can afford to save your mooring. Please send a check to the Newport Mooring Association, at PO Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118, or just send your contribution by credit card to mail@newportmooringassociation.org using Zelle or PayPal.  See Below:

3. Start to show up as often as possible to the Harbor Commission and City Council meetings. We never know anymore when these proposals will be presented since the Harbor Commission refuses to provide the NMA with any advanced notice of any of these proposals and buries them in the agenda item “Harbor Commission 2022 Objectives.” 

Harbor Commission meetings are the second Wednesday of each month at 5pm, unless otherwise noticed.  The next Harbor Commission meeting is this Wednesday at 5pm. The next City Council meeting will be Tuesday August 23 at 4pm.

Thank you for your anticipated help and support,

Your NMA Directors
Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118
mail@NewportMooringAssociation.org 

June 10, 2022

Dear NMA Members, 

At the June 8th Harbor Commission meeting, Commissioner Beer presented his new mooring system proposal.  The proposal involves realigning the mooring fields, installing a new anchoring system and having a shared mooring on one end of the two-point mooring systems.  A copy of the slide show that was presented at the June 8th meeting can be downloaded below.

We have posed a number of questions to Commissioner Beer and the full Harbor Commission in response to the proposal: 

1. Has this mooring reconfiguration been approved by City Management? Or is this still 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? 
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 timeframe 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. 

We believe the existing mooring configuration has served the harbor well for decades.  We can’t understand why the Harbor Commission would propose a significant change when the existing mooring configuration that has been developed over the years is quite functional. 

New Harbor Commissioner Appointments:  On another note, on Wednesday, June 14th, the Newport City Council will confirm the nominations for the 3 Harbor Commissioner positions that will become vacant on June 30th.  There are 6 nominees for the 3 positions.  On June 28th, the City Council will vote of the appointments, who are listed below:

• Ira Beer (incumbent)
• Don Yahn (incumbent)
• Antonella Castro
• Rudy Svrcek
• Jordan Wachter
• Bill Peterson

City Council always appreciates input for these appointments.  Feel free to email your support or concerns of any nomination to  Citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov.

Shore mooring fee increase:  Lastly, the NMA has not heard of any new developments regarding the proposed shore mooring fee increase.  We will send out an update when we learn of any new developments on that subject. 

Thanks for your support!

Your NMA Directors 

Looking out for the interest of all mooring owners 

P.S. Contributions to the NMA are always appreciated