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
 

 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

6-13-23

The NMA continues to ask for clarification on the language pertaining to transferability, and for more details on criteria used for the mooring test in the C field.

The Staff Report and related documents for the May 23rd meeting are available to download below.

We encourage you to email your thoughts to the 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

Donations welcome at: https://newportmooringassociation.org/membership
or send your check to our address below.

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 

7-12-23

To the NMA members - The NMA Board sent this letter to the Harbor Commission yesterday morning, but it appears to not have been published with the public materials for tonight's Harbor Commission meeting:

July 11th, 2023

Dear Chair Scully and Honorable Harbor Commissioners:

We would like to thank the Harbor Commission for its innovative ideas and hard work in providing affordable public access by opening up moorings generally not in use and owed by the City, with the idea of opening recreational use of the harbor for owners of vessels which need to be in the water and are not generally trailerable.

The Newport Mooring Association has not had an opportunity to perform a complete review of the staff report for the proposed new “License” agreement for the 14 City owned moorings, but we did note a few very important omissions which should be included in this and future reports concerning the medium- and long-term rental or licensing of these 14 City owned moorings.

Reference to the Beacon Bay Bill Should be Included.

In our initial review we noticed the staff report references “fair market” mooring rates and various city rental rate policies, as if these moorings were not a recreational use of the harbor.  What is omitted is any reference to the Beacon Bay Act that states that the marinas and “similar uses” are “recreational uses.”  The Beacon Bay Act also requires the City in the management of the harbor not to discriminate in rates for such uses, and the City has established and published a rate schedule of charges for the use of given areas of the tidelands. At this time, we are not suggesting any particular rates, only that the relevant portions of the Beacon Bay Act be included in the Staff Report and future version of reports on the subject.  Currently, the report only references one consideration, but as the Harbor Commission is aware, there are other considerations when it comes to recreational uses.  Shown below are relevant excerpts from the more than 100 year old Beacon Bay Bill, most recently amended on this point in 1978 and again in 2001.  (Please note that any reference in the Beacon Bay Bill to market value only applied to the small piece of land taken out of the tidelands to create the non-submerged lands to build homes generally off Bayside Drive, often referred to as the Beacon Bay homes, and the reference has no application in the Act to charges for recreational use of the submerged tidelands.)

The City Coastal Land Use Plan Should be Included.

Section 3.3.2-3 of the City Coastal Land Use Plan (shown below) indicates that the City will charge “low-cost” rates for moorings in Newport Harbor as a means of affordable access.  This was and is, in effect, a promise made by the City to the people of the State of California and should be included as an important consideration.  Indeed, one of the most important reasons for providing medium- and long-term rentals of these 14 City owned moorings is to help fulfill that promise and the NMA finds that very insightful and laudable, which we wholly support.  Again, our concern is to have this important consideration shown whenever there is discussion of rates and charges for these moorings.

City Policy F-7E Should be Included.

The City Policy F-7E (also shown below) which clearly states the City can charge less than fair market rates for recreational amenities.  This has long been a well-established practice of every City.  For example, while the City has the right under the Beacon Bay Bill to manage the beaches, the City does not charge a fee to the public for sitting on the beach for the day, even though this is likely a “market” and many people would pay a fee in the crowded summer months.  As noted in the Beacon Bay Bill and in many other documents, recreational boating and having a place to keep a boat that needs to be in the water is a recreational use and the City has the right to establish rates that are other than market rates.  While this may seem obvious, we feel that it should be expressly stated, and reference to City Policy F-7E (which is no different from every cities’ policy in the state), should be included so there is no misunderstanding, and a balanced approach can be considered. 

Initial Questions Regarding Possible Ambiguities.  

Again, we have not had the opportunity to review the entire report and attachments.  On a quick review we noted some questions, ambiguities, and concerns regarding the licensee agreement, which looks like a rental agreement.  For example, it is unclear who will own and maintain the hardware, including very expensive inspection expenses.  Does a renter on a month to month rental need to pay for the inspection or for replacement or addition to weights?  For these reasons, we respectfully request the opportunity to meet with the Harbor Commission prior to any vote to moving this item on to City Council.

We again wish to thank the Harbor Commission and Staff with moving forward with your innovative ideas in opening up these 14 City owned mooring to the public for medium- and long-term rentals, when these mooring were not otherwise being used for other purposes.

Thank you,

The NMA Board of Directors

 ______________________________  

Excerpts from the Beacon Bay Bill: 

Statutes of 1978, Chapter 74, approved April 6, 1978 and restated in Statutes of 2001, Chapter 745 ( The same language first appeared over 100 years ago in the original bill Statutes of 1919, Chapter 494

The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 

SECTION 1. There is hereby granted to the City of Newport Beach and its successors all of the right, title, and interest of the State of California held by the state by virtue of its sovereignty in and to all that portion of the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, bordering upon and under the Pacific Ocean or Newport Bay in the County of Orange, which were within the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, on July 25, 1919; the same to be forever held by the city and its successors in trust for the uses and purposes and upon the following express conditions: 

(a) That the lands shall be used by the city and its successors for purposes in which there is a general statewide interest, as follows: 

(1) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of a public harbor; and for the construction, maintenance, and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways, and streets, and other utilities, structures, and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion or accommodation of commerce and navigation.

(2) For the establishment, improvement, and conduct of public bathing beaches, public marinas, public aquatic playgrounds, and similar recreational facilities open to the general public; and for the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance, and operation of all works, buildings, facilities, utilities, structures, and appliances incidental, necessary, or convenient for the promotion and accommodation of any such uses.
…
(d) In the management, conduct, operation, and control of the lands or any improvements, betterments, or structures thereon, the City or its successors shall make no discrimination in rates, tolls, or charges for any use or service in connection therewith.

_________________________________
Excerpt from the City Coastal Land Use Plan

3.3.2-3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor.

_________________________________
Excerpts from City Policy F-7E

E. However, in some circumstances the City may determine that use of a property by the public for recreational, charitable or other nonprofit purpose is preferred and has considerable public support, in which case the City may determine that non-financial benefits justify not maximizing revenue from such property. In such circumstances, the City has a vested interest in ensuring that the lessee of such property operates the activities conducted on or from the property in the manner that has been represented to the City throughout the duration of any lease or contract with the City.

F. Whenever less than the open market or appraised value is received or when an open bid process is not conducted, the City shall make specific findings setting forth the reasons thereof.

Such findings may include but need not be limited to the following:

1. The City is prevented by tideland grants, Coastal Commission guidelines or other restrictions from converting the property to another use.
…
…
…
5. The property provides an essential or unique service to the community or a clearly preferred use that enjoys substantial support in the community that might not otherwise be provided were full market value of the property be required.

___________
Newport Mooring Association
P.O. Box 1118, Newport Beach, CA 92659-1118 

Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org

 Dear NMA Members,
 

The NMA Board hopes you are enjoying the summer, despite the recent tropical storm!  

Here are three important updates relating to moorings:

1.  Mooring Configuration Changes - Moving mooring rows closer together:  As you are likely aware, a May the City Council approved several harbor code changes and the proposed pilot test involving moving moorings closer together in the C field.  On the bright side, the City Council and staff clarified that existing transferability shall remain intact.  Additionally, the City agreed that a Coastal Development Permit will be necessary prior to the pilot test and the safe use of moorings will be a critical evaluation factor.  To the best of our knowledge, there has not been any safety evaluation for the mooring layout involved in the pilot test, which is a cause for concern.
 

2.  Creation of new Mooring "License" agreement (and new mooring rates) recommended by the Harbor Commission:  At the August Harbor Commission meeting, the Harbor Commission approved recommendations for a new mooring license agreement and new mooring rates for City- owned moorings.  The City owns around a dozen incidental moorings.  Historically these incidental moorings have been rented out by the city or used for incidental boat storage such as impounded vessels.  Now the Harbor Commission has recommended a complex mooring "licensing" with several harbor code changes.  Below is one page from Commissioner Beer's presentation that caught our attention.  The NMA was not informed of this agenda item and did not attend the meeting.  We are not certain what final recommendations were made regarding mooring licenses and associated mooring rates. The Harbor Commission used a new appraisal from Netzer to determine proposed rates for the City-owned moorings.  The NMA Board is currently reviewing this appraisal and will give our membership comments soon.
 

 3.  City Council to consider $700k in funding for moving moorings around on 8/22/23:  The City Harbor Master is asking Council to approve $700k in contracts to move moorings around.  The NMA is seriously confused on this request given it is our understanding that no moorings would be moved until a Coastal Development Permit is approved (which generally takes a year or longer to be processed.)  The NMA believes it is concerning for the City Council to be asked to allocate significant taxpayer dollars for a plan that may not be approved by the Coastal Commission.  It is our understanding that City Council approved a budget of $270,000 for the yet-to-be-performed pilot test at the May meeting.  We are concerned that City Council is now being asked to approve $700k in mooring relocation contracts today.  The Staff Report and contracts can be downloaded below.
 

As a final note, we are looking for mooring owners to help with NMA committee and special projects. Please let us know if you can give us a few hours a month to help out.
 

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
 

Contact us at mail@newportmooringassociation.org