HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - 19- Miscellaneous Items received after the Agenda printedttheCalifornia's Boating & Fishing News
INSIDE: FREE
The Log's Southern California Boatyard
Guide 2011, Pg. 31
N California's Number 1 Boating Classifieds
for 34 Years Running, Pg. 57
No. 881 California Boating News Since 1971 November 12 - 25, 2010
Boaters Denounce
Plan to Raise
Mooring Fees
An ad hoc committee's proposal to almost triple Newport Harbor
mooring fees and alter the system in which moorings are trans-
ferred was loudly opposed by a crowd of mooring holders at a
Nov. 9 Newport Beach City Council study session ... Pg. 14
a
Q
m
e
E
S
14 + November 12 - 25, 2010 • The
Boaters Denounce Plan to Raise Mooring
Item will be discussed again at offshore moorings
Nov. 23 city study session. I would be set at 14
By Ambrosia Brody
NEWPORT BEACH — An ad hoc com-
mittee's proposal to almost triple
Newport Harbor mooring fees and
alter the system in which moorings
are transferred was loudly opposed by
a crowd of mooring holders spealdng
at a Nov. 9 Newport Beach City
Council study session.
Under the proposal for the har-
bor's 1,220 moorings, new rates for
percent of the har-
bor's average slip
rate, instead of the
current 5 percent.
The new onshore
mooring rate
would be half of
that.
"You are burden-
ing, for revenue,
those people who
are least capable of
bearing those bur-
dens," Sherman
Fees
More Expensive Moorings? — Under a fee increase pro-
posal for Newport Harbor's 1,220 moorings, rates for
offshore moorings would be set at 14 percent of the har-
bor's average slip rate, instead of the current 5 percent
The new onshore mooring rate would be half of that
O ° O' a ti C TJ O A •{y �c+C y 00 1•' O ,'G'„ O y b�0 r •p rr OA
o a co ��o v•y°yh ' _°Qo o 3 ° e ay C3 0 �° : v~0 O°Oy .m � �3 ° w .�°E. .0 �o�E E wsyEuL���U H �E°O .�a(� xm C° i ° . y 3 a Y °Y � 4.° roC .yy 5, o F 0 'm � ¢ ' � C ca oH an . d oa>+ Y °O 4 t h7 ? � N .Y w zm y m ° o H 00OO i ° o 0. � a ❑w c o h ma3 J c❑ G m C n 0 0 0.0 U M W O C tO o a°i z O E Oo v o+❑ N o « ' m�a'❑°N ty 7
4w m° o n :
' x ao a 3o
3m E c °> 3 ° o m E .o 0 0.0
P. a0.¢° _4,0 ° to - o b o to
o o O o ° . z t- 0 0 b o a❑
>c E a °
Q, o a coo • ° o a � a °oa �E o° Y° ° °E o m =Zo
j E a a c
o�+ rao.S�o c E�yobc hco`" Eh�o��
>i 2 "" rp R .° vi V .b ,�,' y 41 YO 4 N M° O ++ C 3 U .4: O °: ° N t0 w `� .�i "°' h 7 M
aO3�0 ° m
3o° mO a 2 ❑ E o
an
Eu a o" ❑6°r o > o $°< ° 0 2 o a a h b a s a
Z
vaaE � t .y cO y
-
�o°Pw a °hicax °"���
c n ova°. °��� ° °O •o
E !a PC M
,Fees
From,page l'4 -
have no parking, no showers or elec-
tricity"
I'fapproved, increases will be
implemented over five years, with the
first increase in2011: During,the-next:
five years, vacancies, transfer fees and
the wait list will be monitored to
ensure that pricing „is appropriate,
according to the committee.
City Manager Dave Kiff acknowl-
edged that increases are required to
maintain the harbor, including dredg-
ing and other expenses associated
with harbor upkeep. Thecosts:will
ulso.help offset the additional` cost
charged by the Orange County
Sheriff ,'s Harbor Patrol
for administering the moorings. The
city signed a five -year contract with
the agency, which raised its fee from,
$115,000 to $290,000 per year.
Mayor Pro Tern Henn said the fee
increases were important, bringing
attention to the $67 million cuinulative
deficit in harbor costs projected for
2017. "We have a real,alrnost- emergency
situation level "here; for spending
requirements to support and maintain
and improve this`harbor,, that we have
to address: No matterwhat," he said.
The city does not have an expecta-
tion of placing;the entire burden on
.the shoulders of harbor users, he
;added. "Our intent ismot to'jast go,
out t6 be looking to "get money from
anybody we can get it from: Our
intent is to at least be able;to assure
along the way that the various harbor
users obtain their fair share for the
support Of the „harbor:•”
The fees were only one point of
contention for boaters who packed
the council chambers, occupying,
every seat. For many, the transferabil-
ity rules floated by the subcommittee
are a larger issue.
The city has grappled with trans-
ferability issues for several years since
the process'came underscrutiny by
the Orange County Grand Jury in
2007 —when it issued a report enti-
tled "Newport Moorings: Are They
,Held in the Public Trust or Private
Profit ?” The 13 7page reportexpressed
'concerns about ,a "legal loopholel"
that tnany'residents use to sell their
moorings` (by selling a moored boat at
1617 a nit
the,city
scheduled independent appraisal for
the fair market value of mooring ;per-
mit fees.The city was also,asked'to,
creafe an effective waiting list system
for moorings,',to address complaints
abou , _g „time.warttmg list boaters
never getting a mooring:
Under the new proposal, mooring
holders will be limited in the number of
times a mooring can be transferred.
Current mooring holders will be allotted
one transfer to another person between
now and 2015, except for immediate
family members If a person purchases a
vessel on a mooring; they will have up
to six months to stay on the mooring
until they must relocate.
The proposal places no restrictions
on transfers within an immediate
family ifthe mooring permit holder
has died.
"This, is unfair to ,existing mooring
permit holders, who in good faith
checked with the city in advance, only
wishing to recoup their investment”
said Dan Gribble, owner of
Boatswain's Locker, "Since,the city
has embraced and encouraged this
practice, l think there is art obligation
to protect the value of that asset for
the citizens."
Instead_of;the proposed transfer
policy, the,NMA asked council mem-
bers to consider the transferability
document crafted by the Mooring
Master Plan Subcommittee. Forthree
years, the committee worked on the
creation of proposed�new transfer-
ability rules that address the concerns
of the grand jury and city officials.
The 12- pagedocum'ent'that has been
reviewed by:two city attorneys, city,
council members, the 'city` revenue
department and the Orange County
Sheriff's Harbor Patrol, „and was sub-
mitted to city council in 2009.
NMA Secretary Bill`Moses'called
the documenta ',win win” forth'e city',
and harbor users. The Moor'
Master Plan Subcommittee's plan
would eliminate speculative buying
and selling of moorings — often
referred to as "the black market."
"It creates newrevenue;forthe city
and improves public access to short-
and long -term rental opportunities,
which triggers new incomes and use
of the moorings," Moses said. "leis a
way for the city to do the right thing."
Under the NMA.docu men t„ trans-
ferability would'be allowed fora
transferee who does not hold more
than two other mooring permits.
Upon transfer, the permittee would
be required to show proof of owner-
ship within 60 days; otherwise, the
mooring would be deemed vacant
and could' be rented.
Mooring use could not be "loaned"
to someone else for mare than 30
days, and the lender could not have
"loaned" mooring use for more than
60 days in pr'eviou's yeas
The revised fee plan will be dis-
cussed again in a Nov.,23 study, -ses-
sion.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: November 22, 2010
SUBJECT: Updated Redline of Mooring Administration Ordinance (aka
"Transferability Document") with Input through November 22, 2010
There has been further input on the Mooring Administration Ordinance since it was
distributed in your agenda packet. The Ad Hoc Committee and staff have
recommended further refinements to the document that are reflected in the redline
document attached. These changes are based in part on a desire to achieve clarity and
in part based upon input from stakeholders. All substantive changes are addressed in
comments in the redline document.
The general nature of the changes is:
1. A cautionary change to avoid arguments that Proposition 26 is implicated;
2. Address wording issues on renumbering of the sections when they are codified
and eliminate typographical errors;
3. Achieve clarity with respect to mooring fields available to yacht clubs;
4. Eliminate ambiguity regarding "other" moorings in the exceptions un 17.60.040
B.1.a.;
5. Make it clear that certain transfers, those between immediate family and for a
temporary six month grace period upon sale of vessel, apply regardless of the
time they occur;
6. Eliminate any auctioning off of mooring permits in order to be consistent with the
intent to make the "Interest List' the means for obtaining a mooring permit; and
thus increase accessibility to the harbor; and
7. Clarify revocation provisions.
Updated Redline of Mooring Administration Ordinance
November 22, 2010
Page: 2
We hope these revisions make for a clearer document. Please let us know if there are
any questions or concerns. Otherwise we will address all questions at the Council
meeting.
( 2
Attachment: Revised Redline of Mooring Administration Ordinance — November 22,
2010
Cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager (w/ attachment)
A08 -00136 AMC from DRH re Updated Redline of Mooting Admin Ordinance - 11.22. 10
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION 17.01.030 OF CHAPTER
17.01, SECTION 17.40.020 OF CHAPTER 17.40 AND
SECTION 17.60.040 OF CHAPTER 17.60 OF TITLE
17 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO MOORING PERMITS
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that
1. The Management and Stewardship of Newport Harbor has been granted
under Tidelands Trust Legislation by the State of California. Vessel
moorings on the City Tidelands are intended to provide a lower -cost
alternative to boat slips in Newport Harbor and to provide boating
accessibility to a larger segment of the population. Historically, starting
from the 1930's, mooring transferability was limited under the Municipal
Code to allow an individual mooring permit holder to convey the existing
mooring hardware, and to transfer the mooring permit to another individual
only in conjunction with the sale of the vessel assigned to the mooring.
2. When this system was developed, demand for moorings was minimal.
Initially, an individual could request permission to install privately owned
mooring equipment and would be assigned a location and a mooring
number. Over the next thirty years when the designated mooring areas
were filled; an informal wait list was established. However, as the demand
increased over several decades, a significant value was associated with
possession of a mooring permit that was far in excess of the value of the
mooring hardware. As the value of the permit increased, the ability to
acquire a permit from the wait list decreased significantly.
3. When there is great demand for moorings, a value is associated with a
mooring permit well in excess of the annual permit fees. This value may be
inappropriate in light of the California Constitution's prohibition against the
gifting of public funds or assets as set forth in Article XVI, Section 6 of the
state Constitution. This amendment to the mooring permit and transferability
provisions of Title 17 provides for a revised and short -term process begins to
bang the Cdys administration of moonngs into compliance with Article XVI,
Section 6 ltal3q�fdetgs fes rents` and chcs that pro�aide venue
w cft ca
1an �wPr aas�st�rf tytldtrfg Harbor malnteriance ghd - drzdgi?g "fifo1eek
nd i#or amerai€te's:=
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California,
HEREBY ORDAINS as follows:
�COmmeirt [DRH1j:•1L1a Asa c2u5onary
'cklange'tq ayvkF>mP>Ica6ng PropaaihOn'26
= Cptisid @6ahops, c
Section 17.01.
Comment (DRH21: Simply'clemup edits.
,(4) as TOROWS:
17.01.030 Definition of Terms.
A. Definitions: A.
4. Assigned Vessel. The term "Assigned Vessel' shall mean a vessel
lawfully registered, owned or documented to a Permittee to occupy
a designated mooring or berthing location in Newport Harbor.
SECTION 2: Section 17.01.0300 }-(15� of Chapter 17.01 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby added iA readamended to add Section 1701.030(J)
15 as follows:
J. Definitions: M.
15. Multiple Vessel Mooring System. The term "Multiple Vessel
Mooring System" shall mean a floating platform secured to a single
point mooring only which allows multiple vessels to be secured that
are shorter in overall length than the side of the platform to which
the vessels are to be moored.
SECTION 3: Section 17.01.030(9) (4 1) of Chapter 17.01 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby added4e4eadamended to add Section 17.01.030(0)
u as follows:
0. Definitions: S.
4. Sub - Permits.
a. Sub - Permits - Long Term. The term "Long Term Sub - Permit' shall be
defined as those mooring sub - permits issued by the City for the
temporary use of a Deemed Vacant or a Noticed Vacant mooring for a
period of between one (1) month -to- twelve (12) months.
b. Sub-Permit - Short Term. The term "Short Term Sub- Permit shall be
defined as those mooring sub - permits issued by the City for a
temporary use of a Deemed Vacant or Noticed Vacant mooring for any
f (A08- 001361 Mooring Admin Ord - Redlne- 11.22.10 Post Flu Meedng(DRH)/Reelsed 11.23.10&M
period of time less than thirty (30) days as determined by the Harbor
Resources Manager.
SECTION 4: Section 17.40.020 of Chapter 17.40 of Newport Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
17.40.020 Live - Aboards Prohibited.
A. Live - aboards shall not be permitted at piers that are bay ward of
residentially zoned areas. No person shall live- aboard any vessel on an onshore
mooring. (Ord. 2008 -2 § 1 (part), 2008)
B. Live - aboards are prohibited on moorings subject to long -term mooring
sub- permits as noted in Section 17.60.040(G).
C. Live - aboards may be permitted on short term on moorings subject to short
term sub - permits according to Section 17.60.040(G).
SECTION 5: Section 17.60.040 of Chapter 17.60 of Newport Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
A. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct, maintain, use or tie
to a mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor over City - owned or controlled
tidelands without first having obtained a mooring permit from the Harbor
Resources Manager or having otherwise complied with this section. A mooring
permit is in the nature of license for the temporary use of a specific location
within the Newport Harbor. Any work described and authorized in the permit
must be completed within the time designated in the permit.
B. Issuance of Permit — Conditions. The Harbor Resources Manager, in
furtherance of the tideland grants to the City, may issue a mooring permit or
mooring sub - permit to allow the Mooring Permittee or Mooring Sub - Permittee to
temporarily use a portion of the waters of Newport Harbor for the mooring of a
vessel.
1. Exceptions:
a. The Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club
(408- 001361 - Moortng Admire Ord - Reditne - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting (DR11)/Reolsed 11.23.10 /cm
(collectively, "Yacht Clubs ") currently hold permits for single
point moorings placed within certain mooring area
boundaries established by the City, except as noted in
Section 3 -f below. In addition, the Lido Isle Community
Association ( "LICA ") has permits for on -shore moorings on
Lido Isle.
t ~ ^;;; These organizations shall hold their
respective permits under the Yacht Club, or respective
organization name, for the moorings identified by Harbor
Resources as under their respective control at the time of
enactment of this ordinance. The Yacht Clubs and LICA
shall be solely responsible for managing moorings under
their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under
their control to Yacht Club members and members of LICA,
respectively. The Yacht Clubs and LICA shall keep accurate
records of the name and address of the club members and
community association members to which each mooring has
been assigned. Mooring records shall be made available for
audit by the Harbor Resources Manager during regular
business hours upon request.
b. Mooring of a Tender. A vessel no longer than fourteen (14')
feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the
Assigned Vessel, may be secured to the Assigned Vessel or
may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of
the Assigned Vessel.
C. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbor
Resources Manager may approve multiple vessel mooring
system in the mooring areas of Newport Harbor Yacht Club
and the Balboa Yacht Club. An application for a multiple
vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the
Harbor Resources Manager, who shall evaluate the
application based upon standards he shall have established.
2. Permit Requirements. Each mooring permit shall be issued to one
natural person ( "Mooring Permittee ") who shall be responsible for
all activities related to the mooring permit. To the satisfaction of the
Harbor Resources Manager, the Mooring Permittee shall:
a. Identify on the permit the full legal name, current address,
current telephone number and current e-mail address, if one
exists, of the Mooring Permittee;
b. Agree to be responsible for permit fees, maintenance and
repair of mooring equipment;
I IA08- 001361-MO rWq Admin Ord - Redline - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting (ORFIJ /Revised 11.23.10 /cm
C;umment tDRH3f: Dealt wtthspecdically
in new B 3.t. below to eLm uatl ambiguity :
C. Grant permission to the City of Newport Beach to temporarily
assign the mooring to another vessel when it is unoccupied
through the issuance of a mooring sub - permit;
d. Agree to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach
and any other government entity with jurisdiction against any
claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of the
mooring permit except where the claim or loss arises out of
the sole negligence and /or sole misconduct of a person
assigned the mooring as a mooring sub - permittee under
subsections G and/or H below;
e. Provide proof of liability insurance on vessel as determined
by the City's Risk Manager, and;
f. Provide registration or other proof of controlling possessory
right in the Assigned Vessel, all to the satisfaction of the
Harbor Resources Manager.
3. Permitteeirransferee Qualifications. A mooring permit shall -m�be
held by, or transferred to, only the following persons:
a. A natural person holding title to an Assigned Vessel;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will
or administering a probated estate that holds title to an
Assigned Vessel, but only for the period of time prior to
distribution of the estate;
C. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust
estate holding title to an Assigned Vessel so long as all
trustors are natural persons and the primary Mooring
Permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. An approved transferee whose vessel and /or mooring permit
are subject to any of the terms and conditions stated in
17.60.040(E);
e. A marine contractor or marine support service provider,
holding title to an Assigned Vessel used to provide current or
ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services
(such as maintenance and dredging) as authorized under
the provisions of a Marine Activities Permit;
-l. 1A08-00136 /- Mooring Admire Ord -Redfn - 1I.22. 10 Post Flu Meeting(DRFp/Remsed 11.23.I0 /cm
The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club and
LICA (collectively "Yacht Clubs ") - only for those moorings
assigned by the City of Newport Beach within certain
established mooring areas or locations, prior to the
enactment of this amended ordinance. The boundaries of
these designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The
boundaries of these mooring areas are graphically depicted
C. Plans and Specifications Required. No permit shall be issued for placing,
erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or
buoy is constructed:
1. In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by
the Harbor Resources Manager and at a location approved by the
Harbor Resources Manager; or
2. In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring
or buoy which have been submitted by the applicant, showing the
construction of such proposed mooring or buoy together with the
location thereof, and which meet the requirements established in
this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbor
Resources Manager.
D. Unpaid Fees. When the permittee is in arrears for a period of ninety (90)
days or more, the Harbor Resources Manager may, at his discretion, revoke the
permit upon five (5) days written notice to the permittee by first class mail to the
address shown on the permit. If the mooring is not removed by the permittee
within thirty (30) days after cancellation of the permit, then it shall be deemed
abandoned and the title thereto shall vest in the City. Mooring Permittee may
apply for reimbursement for the value of the mooring equipment pursuant to
subsection M below.
I (A08 -00136) - Mooring Admin O d - Red( bee - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting (ORkoywevised 11.23.10 /cm
FMnanuing ment [DRH4]: Specifically address
ing uses that are justified m
m the current names of the
ring perm[ftees based upon Tidelands
nhes,
comment [DRHS]: To ehminate
ambegmtles based not fully accurate
exhibit and to eLenhade any implication
that the yacht clubs may not maintain
their existing number of moorings, but
'allow for the consolidation into assigned
mooring fields.
E. Transfer of Permit. No Moorinp pPermittee shall transfer a permit for a
mooring or buoy granted under the provisions of this chapter, except,
3. In cases not reflected in 1 and 2 above a Mooring pPermit may be
transferred prior to January 1, 2021 up to two times if the Mooring
Permittee intends to sell or otherwise transfer, or has sold or
transferred, ownership of the Assigned Vessel and does not intend to
replace the Assigned Vessel with another vessel owned by Mooring
Permittee.
F. Procedures for Transfers: Permits shall not be transferred without the prior
written approval of the Harbor Resources Manager. oreF t .,.., aFy , 9024
4-:The Harbor Resources Manager shall approve the transfer of a mooring ,
permit under the procedures set ferth- out below:
1. The Mooring Permittee (or, if the Permittee is deceased or
incapacitated, the transferee) shall submit to the Harbor Resources
Manager:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by
the Harbor Resources Manager); and
b. Documentation that the proposed new Mooring Permittee
(Transferee) qualifies as a Mooring Permittee under section
B (3) above.
2. If transferee intends to purchase an Assigned Vessel but does not
have title on the Assigned Vessel owned by the Mooring Permittee
and transferor at the time of transfer, then:
I. [A08- 001361 - Mooring Admire Old - Redihe -1 L22.10 Post Flu Meeting fDRWL&R iced 11.2310/cm
Comment [ORH6]: Moved up from F below
to make it clear these types of tramfem
maybe made - regardless ofwhen they
occu
Comment [DRH7]: Since some form of
'.transfer is allowedregardless of date the
;procedures m needed
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to
Harbor Resources Manager a copy of a California
Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard
documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the Assigned Vessel, or in the case of a shore
mooring, a photograph of the Assigned Vessel if it is not
subject to vessel registration laws; or
b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbor
Resources Manager within the sixty (60) day period, then the
mooring may be deemed vacant and may be rented
assigned pursuant to sub - sections G) and H below. If the
documentation is not received within an additional sixty (60)
days, the mooring shall revert back to the City for
assignment through the Interest List as set out in subsection
M below.
3. If Transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the Assigned
Vessel and does not have title to the vessel that will be moored at
the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of an approved transfer the transferee
shall notify Harbor Resources Manager that the Assigned
Vessel has been removed from the mooring and before a
new vessel may be placed on the mooring shall submit to
Harbor Resources Manager a copy of a California
Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard
documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the new Assigned Vessel, or in the case of a
shore mooring, a photograph of the new Assigned Vessel if it
is not subject to vessel registration laws; or
b. If the documentation is not received within 60 days of a
transfer, the mooring may be deemed vacant and may be
assigned pursuant to subsection G and H below. If the
documentation is not received within an additional sixty (60)
days, the mooring shall revert back to the City for
assignment through the Interest List as set out in subsection
M below.
4. The transfer request shall be denied unless Mooring Permit fees
are paid current; required mooring inspections are current; required
maintenance and repairs are complete and there are no derelict or
'I (A08- 001361 - Mooring Admire Ord- Redline - 11.22.10 Post Flu MeeUng(ORH)Lae t d11.23.10/cm
unauthorized vessel(s) on the mooring.
5. The Mooring Permittee and transferee shall provide a written
agreement to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach in
any dispute with a third party over transferee's right to be the
Mooring Permittee or in any dispute with a third party over the
Mooring Permittee's right to transfer the permit.
6. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with this
subsection, the Harbor Resources Manager must find all of the
following conditions to approve the transfer of a mooring permit:
a. The Mooring Permittee no longer owns the Assigned Vessel
or has retained ownership of the Assigned Vessel and has
permanently vacated the mooring;
b. The specific mooring location has not been previously
transferred more than one (1) time between the effective
date of this ordinance and December 31, 2020;
C. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions
for issuance of a permit in subsection B above.
7. The Harbor Resources Manager may approve a one for one
exchange of moorings between two Mooring Permittees, subject to
compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed
by the City.
8. The Harbor Resources Manager may approve the changing of an
Assigned Vessel on the permit, subject to the requirements of
Section B above, without any transfer fee imposed by the City.
_I (AO8- 00136) - Mooring Admin Ord - Redline- 1I.22.IOPOstFlu Meeting(DRFO /Reoised11.2310 /cm
G. City's Authority to Assign Moorings through Use of Sub - Permits. With the
exception of the Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and
the Lido Isle Community Association's designated moorings, Mooring
Permittee may not rent, assign, or transfer the use of the mooring to any
other person. With the exception of moorings issued to Mooring
Permittees described in Section B (3) (e), City shall have the authority to
assign vacant moorings to sub - permittees pursuant to the following
provisions:
1. Deemed Vacant Moorings. City may assign Deemed Vacant
Moorings through the issuance of long term sub - permits at its own
discretion for any period of time up to one (1) year. Long term sub -
permits may be renewed upon availability. The Mooring Permittee
may reclaim its mooring upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to
City of its intent to return the Assigned Vessel to the mooring.
A "Deemed Vacant Mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon
which:
a. An Assigned Vessel has not been attached for thirty (30)
consecutive days or more; or
b. A vessel, other than an Assigned Vessel, has been attached
for thirty (30) days or more; or
C. Required documentation for an Assigned Vessel has not
been provided for a transfer request pursuant to Section E
above.
2. Noticed Vacant Moorings: City may assign Noticed Vacant
Moorings at its own discretion through the issuance of a mooring
sub- permit for any period of time, either long or short term, up to
the reoccupation date on Mooring Permittee's written notice, or the
twenty -four (24) hour written notice per subsection (b) below. If the
mooring continues to be vacant for thirty (30) days past the
reoccupation date indicated on Mooring Permittee's notice, and
there is no further written notice from Mooring Permittee, the
mooring shall become a Deemed Vacant Mooring.
a. Mooring Permittee may provide written notice to City of its
intent to vacate its mooring for fifteen (15) days or more.
These moorings shall be "Noticed Vacant Moorings."
Written notice shall include the date the Mooring Permittee
intends to vacate his /her mooring, and the date he /she
intends to reoccupy the mooring with the Assigned Vessel.
i (AO8- 001361 - Mooring Adv Ord - Redl me - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meebng(DR1W/Reulsed1123 IORm
b. If Mooring Permittee provides notice, the Mooring Permittee
may reclaim the assigned mooring on the reoccupation date
indicated in his /her written notice, or, if the Mooring
Permittee r returns prior to or after the reoccupation date,
upon twenty -four (24) hours written notice to the City.
H. Procedures for Mooring Sub - Permit Issuance. Any natural person wishing
to use a mooring pursuant to the issuance of a sub - permit must enter into
a written mooring sub - permit agreement with the Harbor Resources
Department that includes the following:
1. A written representation of the current gross vessel weight which
shall be satisfactory to the Harbor Resources Manager.
2. An agreement to be responsible for any damage to mooring
equipment, to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach and
the Mooring Permittee against any claims or losses arising out of,
or related to the mooring rental, and that requires the mooring sub -
permittee to provide proof of liability and marine pollution insurance,
registration or other proof of ownership, and an equipment damage
deposit, all to the satisfaction of the Harbor Resources Manager.
3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid
by the mooring sub - permittee.
4. Mooring sub - permittees shall provide approved mooring lines which
shall be removed at the end of the rental period.
5. A mooring sub - permit agreement is renewable based on
availability. Upon return of the Assigned Vessel to the mooring, the
Harbor Resources Department will attempt to reassign the sub -
permittee to another mooring. Mooring sub - permittees have no right
of renewal or substitute moorings upon return of the Assigned
Vessel, or upon termination of a mooring sub - permit agreement for
any reason. Mooring sub - permittees accept an indefinite term at
their own risk.
6. The sub - permit fee will be based on a rate established by the
Newport Beach City Council and delineated in the Master Fee
Schedule Resolution,
7. Live - aboards are not permitted on moorings subject to a-long term
mooring sub - permits. Live- aboards may be temporarily permitted
on moorings subject to short-term sub - permits pending vessel
inspection and subsequent re- inspection per each short-term sub-
(A08- 00136) - Mooring Admtn Ord - Redline - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting (D1F1J/Re4sed L1.23. I0 /cm
permit renewal.
8. Short term sub - permit renewals are not guaranteed and are
subject to availability.
9. Mooring sub - permits that are available for thirty (30) days or more
shall be first offered to persons on the Interest List, as defined
below, as a priority. Non - acceptance of such mooring assignments
shall not cause such persons to lose their position on the Interest
List,
10. Mooring sub - permits that are available for less than a thirty (30) day
period shall be offered to the public on a first -come, first -serve
basis.
11. A mooring may be loaned free of charge by the Mooring Permittee
to a vessel other than the Assigned Vessel for no more than thirty
(30) consecutive days provided that: 1) The Mooring Permittee
provides the Harbor Resources Manager with written notice
identifying the vessel that will use the mooring; 2) The Mooring
Permittee has not loaned the mooring for more than sixty (60) days
in the twelve (12) month period that immediately precedes the
commencement of the current mooring loan; and 3) The vessel
owner requesting a loan has not previously been the recipient of
loans for more than ninety (90) days in the previous twelve (12)
months.
I. Mooring Interest List
1. The Mooring Interest List ('Interest List ") is the list or lists of natural
persons as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance, who wish
to obtain a mooring permit as permits revert to the City or who wish
to be assigned a mooring on a long term basis from the City
through the issuance of a mooring permit or mooring sub- permit.
On and after the effective date of this ordinance, the Interest List($)
shall be maintained for natural persons interested in securing a
mooring permit, or being temporarily assigned the use of a Deemed
Vacant or a Noticed Vacant Mooring.
2. Any person wishing to be added to the Interest List must do so by
completing a written application and paying a fee to be established
by resolution of the City Council. Any person may be removed from
the Interest List by producing a written signed notice to the Harbor
Resources Manager at any time, requesting to be removed from
the Interest List.
i (A08- 001361 -Mmdng Admin Ord- Redline - 11.22.10 Post Pu Meetog(DRH)/Reytsed 112310 /cm
3. Each even numbered calendar year, the City shall send one notice
to all persons on the Interest List requesting confirmation of
continued interest and /or updating of contact information. If there is
no response to the thirty (30) day notice along with payment of the
administrative fee referenced in 1 (4) below, then the person shall
be removed from the Interest List.
4. Each person on the Interest List is responsible to keep the City
informed of any changes to his or her mailing address or other
contact information and must pay a fee for the administrative costs
to maintain the Interest List to be established by resolution of the
City Council. Nonpayment of such fee shall cause the person to be
removed from the Interest List.
5. Persons on the Interest List will be notified of revoked mooring
permit or mooring sub - permit or, surrendered or abandoned
moorings and given the opportunity to receive a mooring permit or
sub - permit.
J. Mooring Permit Transfer Charge. The City shall charge the Mooring
Permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under section E above
in an amount equal to fifty percent (50 %) of the annual permit fee as
determined by the Master Fee Schedule. A mooring permit transfer
charge shall not be required if:
1. The transfer is from the Mooring Permittee to the same Mooring
Permittee as trustor of an inter vivos trust, living trust or other
similar estate planning tool; or
2. The transfer is made under Section 17.60.0407jEZ 7171- and 8j.
K. Surrendered Mooring Equipment. If the Mooring Permittee sells transfers
or otherwise no longer owns the Assigned Vessel and does not intend to
apply for, or does not receive approval to transfer the Permit to another,
the Permittee may provide written notice to the Harbor Resources
Department of his or her intent to surrender the mooring permit, otherwise
the provisions of Section F regarding a vacant mooring shall apply.
Once a mooring permit is surrendered, the Mooring permittee shall
remove the Assigned Vessel and /or the mooring equipment thirty (30)
days after written notice of surrender of the Permit, or, upon failure to
(A08- 001361 - Mooing Admin Ord - Redl ine - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting (DR1,0j&uised 11.23.10 /cm
Commen[ [DRH9p. Deleted as inconsistent
with policy to use Interest List and would
be ineffective if there was no one interested
ui mooringpemut.
remove the mooring equipment, title shall vest in the City and the City
shall compensate Mooring Permittee the fair value for the mooring
equipment, less fees owed, as provided in subsection M below.
L.- Revocation e- Surfender -0 Permit. comment toaxioj: s,rfen ae�r an h
m K above.
1. Grounds for Revocation. A Mooring Permit or sub - permit may be
revoked upon any of the following grounds set forth in Section
17.70.020 or for any of the following:
a. The moored vessel, or the mooring equipment has been
determined to violate the applicable Mooring Regulations in
Section 17.25.020, and the Mooring Permittee or Sub -
permittee has not made the necessary corrections or repairs
within the time required;
C. The mooring Permittee has failed or refused to allow an
inspection of the vessel to determine if it is seaworthy and
operable, a public nuisance or in compliance with applicable
marine sanitation device requirements;
d. Living aboard a vessel assigned to a mooring without a live -
aboard permit unless otherwise noted in Section
17.60.040(G).
2. Notice and Hearing. In the event the Harbor Resources Manager
determines there are grounds to revoke a permit issued pursuant to
this chapter, the Harbor Resources Manager shall proceed in the
manner described by Section 17.70.020.
3. Upon revocation, it shall be the duty of the Mooring Permittee to
immediately remove the mooring equipment and any moored
vessel. If not removed within thirty (30) days of revocation of the
Permit, the mooring equipment shall vest in the City and may be
auctioned by the City to another person or may be removed by the
Harbor Resources Manager and the cost of mooring equipment
removal shall be paid by the Mooring Permittee. Any moored
vessel or equipment not removed within thirty (30) days may be
impounded by the City and disposed of in the manner provided by
law. City incurred costs of removal of mooring equipment or any
vessel moored thereto may be charged against the Permittee and
collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the
City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or mooring equipment.
4. During any revocation proceeding under this Section L, if the
(AO8- 001361 - Mooring Admin Ord - RedUne - 11.22.10 Post Flu Meeting g)RIn/Reuised 11.23. 1 0/cm
mooring is unoccupied, it may be temporarily assigned as a
mooring for guest vessels by the Harbor Resources Manager.
M. Moorings Reverting Back To City: Should a mooring revert back to the
City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, failure to provide
documents pursuant to subsection E. above, or for any other reason, the
following shall apply:
1. The Mooring Permittee shall be entitled to recover all of Mooring
Permittee's mooring equipment within thirty (30) days of reversion.
2. If Mooring Permittee does not recovery his or her mooring equipment,
Mooring Permittee shall be entitled to payment from the City of the fair
value of the mooring equipment as depreciated by use in an amount to
be determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and as set in the
City's Master Fee Resolution.
3. The mooring shall be assigned to an individual form the Interest list
pursuant to subsection I above.
4. No mooring that reverts to the City for assignment off of the Interest
List, or by any other appropriate procedure, shall have any right to a
later assignment by a Mooring Permittee whatsoever.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and
phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
SECTION 7: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the _ day of 2010,
and adopted on the _ day of 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS
I (A08 -00I361-Mo rrW Admin Ord- Redline - 11.22.10 Post Flu MeeHng(DRFJ) /Reviled 112310 /cm
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS
MA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
David R. Hunt, City Attorney
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
i (A08- 00136)- Moonng Admin Ord - Redtne -11.22.10 Post Flu MeeMg(DRH)/Rev0ed 1I.23.10/cm
Washington, Lillian
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:42 PM
To: City Clerk's Office �f� ,,:
Subject: FW: Mooring leases
For the record.
GTY L = )
From, Dennis Baker [mailto:Dennis.Baker @spamcop.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:25 AM
To: Curry, Keith
Cc: Daigle, Leslie; Mike Henn; Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven; Don Webb; Selich, Edward; Kiff, Dave;
rush @RushHi112010.com
Subject: Mooring leases
Hello Mayor Curry, Council members, and City Manager Kiff,
Regarding mooring charges and regulations:
• In most cases the boat is a luxury item, so the cries of hardship by lease holders rings hollow.
• The wails of loss on investment — Why should the city be responsible for the speculation of private citizens?
• It is completely inappropriate for people to be able to profit through speculation on the mooring leases,
especially when those on a waiting list are denied access. (My understanding is that the mooring leases are city
property.)
• Since public funds, to which I contribute, are used to manage and patrol the moorings, isn't it true that if this is
done at a loss, I'm subsidizing the boat owners since I receive no benefit for this expenditure? Non boaters like
myself should not be subsidizing can holders.
support the direction staff and council are taking on this issue and hope that you "stick to your guns ".
Dennis Baker
706 %: Begonia, CDM
949.675.2199
1
-�l1- 1I -23 -fC
11/23/2010
JOHN HEFFERNAN, RESIDENT ADDRESS: 1971 PORT LAURENT, NB 92660
TIDELAND FEE PAYOR SINCE 1978, AND CURRENTLY BY PAYMENT FOR SLIP # 10 AT
BALBOA YACHT CLUB UNDER ITS MASTER SUBLEASE FROM CAL. RECREATION. CO.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AGENDA ITEM # 19 - MOORING CHARGES
OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CITY ACTION BEING MADE FOR PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
1. Tideland Fee Increases need to be mandated on a uniform and non - discriminatory basis.
Doing so piece -meal and not at the same time is discriminatory - particular Tideland fees will be
increase more than others, increases will not occur at the same time which unfairly increases the
cost to and discriminates against the rate payors who get early rate increases to the benefit of
other payors whose increases are delayed.
2. Increasing Tideland Fees piece -meal unfairly reduces broad public comment and input on rate
increases which can and will have a large financial impact on the payors use and enjoyment of
Tidelands.
3. The City's process to determine Tideland fee increases is flawed and do not conform to normal
appraisal standards, and does not fairly adjust broad market rates to specific conditions here in
Newport Harbor.
4. The City's past use of Tideland fee revenue does not conform to the Public Trust Doctrine or the
1974 Beacon Bay Bill under which the City acts as trustee for the Tidelands by not having
consistently and on a non - discriminatory basis kept Tideland fees at market rates. The City's past
administration has unfairly conveyed a public benefit to many Tideland users whose Tideland fees
have been below market rates, in some cases, since 1996, and in doing so the City owes the
Tideland Fund the difference between the submarket Tideland fees the City did collect vs. the
market rates which the City should have collected by law.
5. The City's stated use of Tideland revenue, including the increase proposed tonight for
moorings, does not conform to normal accounting rules in that the City has unfairly amortized the
cost of particular cost items, such as dredging to 10 year cost recovery, far shorter than the useful
life of such cost item.
6. The City has not in past properly segregated Tideland fees collected and expenditures area ad-
required by law, and there is nothing in the proposed Resolution proposed tonight which corrects
that improper practice.
7. The City is not proposing the proper nexus between its proposed fee increase in this Resolution
to the use of such fee increases to benefit the payors of this specific fee increase.
Ira
T.IFILESIJH WORKICNBITIDELANDSWH C -C OBJECTIONS FOR RECORD # 1- 41.27- 2010.doc
FRED GAMES
SHERMAN L. STACEY
LISA A. WEINBERG
REBECCA A. TrIOMPSON
NANCI S. STACEY
KIMBERLY RIBLE
ALICIA B. BARTLEY
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92661
LAW OFFICES OF
GAINES & STACEY LLP TELEPHONE
1111 BAYSIDE DRIVE, SUITE 280 (949)640 -8999
CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 FAX
(949)640 -8330
November 23, 2010
Re: Proposed Ordinance on Mooring Charges and Mooring Transfers
Honorable Mayor and Council:
I am writing to you in connection with your consideration of a proposed ordinance to
modify the manner in which moorings in Newport Harbor are transferred from the manner that
has existed for more than 50 years. There is also a resolution to modify the rent schedule for
moorings which has not been modified since 1996. I am a resident of Balboa Island and the
owner of both onshore and offshore moorings. It is my request that you not adopt the proposed
ordinance and resolution and direct your staff to return with an ordinance and resolution
implementing the recommendations of the Mooring Master Plan Sub - Committee and the Harbor
Commission.
1. Mooring Transferability.
Many others have commented on the proposed rates which the City Manager has
recommended. I support those comments. My letter deals with the elimination of the ability of a
mooring tackle owner to transfer the right to maintain the mooring to a purchaser of the vessel
anchored at the mooring. Section 17.60.040E of the proposed ordinance would terminate the
ability to transfer the mooring along with a vessel in 2021. I urge the City not to adopt
17.60.040E.
The City is under no obligation to terminate mooring transfers with transfers of vessels.
The California Constitution does not compel the City to terminate mooring transfers. Much has
been made of the idea that people have been "profiteering" on mooring transfers, i.e., taking
money for public property. I doubt that this has occurred in any significant measure. If so, the
procedures worked out by the Mooring Master Plan Sub - Committee and Harbor Commission
would have solved those problems. In any event, it is not reason to punish 1,000 others who did
not "profit'.
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
November 23, 2010
Page 2
If the City Manager is correct in his assessment that increasing the mooring fees to 14%
of the "Index Rate" for slips will be fair market value, then the values of moorings for transfer
ought to be reduced to zero or the value of the tackle. I do not expect that this would be the case
as the ability to acquire a boat and mooring on the open market has other benefits for both the
purchaser and seller. The purchaser gets assurance of the location and the ability to obtain a boat
and a place for a boat at the time of the purchaser's own choosing. The seller is able to sell a
boat which at times of high slip occupancy might not be sold without a place to moor it.
The City is also relieved of an unnecessary administrative burden. Maintaining a waiting
list, notifying a person of availability, waiting to see if the person still needs the mooring,
notifying the next person, responding to continuous inquiries about availability, all of this
requires City resources that are not presently required. The City will also become responsible for
mooring maintenance while a mooring is unassigned, an additional cost.
Finally, the City has heard clearly from many of its residents who presently have
moorings that lack of transferability will destroy all value with which they parted to acquire the
mooring rights. Raising rents will affect that value but not destroy it. If the City is not obligated
to destroy all value of its residents, why must the City do it? To the mooring owners it seems
inescapable that the intent of the City Council must be that its members want to destroy this
value. Why you wish to visit such harm on your own citizens for the supposed benefit of some
others who are not even known is puzzling.
2. Application of California Environmental Quality Act.
The staff report contains a conclusory statement that the adoption of the ordinance and
resolution do not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act. I disagree. An
action of the City will come within the City's obligation to assess whether or not it may have
adverse environmental effects if it is "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change
in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ".
Cal.Pub.Res.Code §21065.
It is reasonably foreseeable that as a result of the fee increases, the boats which will be at
moorings, particularly shore moorings, will increase in size. My own assessment of shore
moorings on Balboa Island notes that most are used for dinghies or other small boats, often less
than 10 feet in length. At the present fee of $100 per year, it is quite reasonable to keep a boat
worth $500 on the mooring. However, at the increased fee of more than $500 per year, it is
likely that the boats which are kept will trend toward the largest size allowed at 18 feet. This will
have a clear visual impact. In addition, the shore moorings are tightly packed and the anchoring
and flexibility of the shore mooring lines are likely to result in boats which will collide from time
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
November 23, 2010
Page 3
to time. Also, if shore moorings must be given up to some waiting list of users, homeowners on
Balboa Island, Lido Island and Balboa Peninsula will likely find the proportion of shore
moorings owned by non - residents will increase, increasing the parking and traffic demands in
these locations.
As the increases in fees constitutes an activity by the City and it is reasonably foreseeable
that this activity will cause changes in use among the 500 shore moorings as well as the more
than 700 offshore moorings, the City must at the very least assess whether or not its activity may
have an adverse effect on the environment. The City has not done so.
Application of Ralph M. Brown Act.
Finally, I have been concerned about the fact that on the November 9 and the November
23 agendas, your closed session has calendared "[p]otential litigation over raising mooring fees
within the harbor." The question of whether or not to raise mooring fees and terminate
transferability are policy questions for the City. They are not the subject of any lawsuit.
Although the Ralph M. Brown Act does provide the opportunity for the council to meet in
closed session with regard to pending litigation, I do not think that closed sessions for discussion
of this mooring issue are lawful. Just because litigation about a policy decision which the City
proposes to make is threatened does not mean that the City may exclude the public from its
discussions or deliberations. In this day and age litigation about any controversial policy
decision will always be a threat.
The exception from the open meeting requirement for litigation is to allow for attorney -
client communications. However, if the City Attorney has advice concerning the legality or the
process by which this proposed mooring ordinance is being advanced, such advice forms part of
the policy judgment by which the City Council may act and must be exposed to the public just as
much as Mr. Kiff s advice or that of Mr. Miller. The purpose of the exception is to permit the
City Council "to receive legal advice and make litigation decisions only; it is not to be used as a
subterfuge to reach nonlitigation oriented policy decisions." 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 96, 104 -105.
It is hard to see what "litigation" decisions the City Council could be considering at this time
when the ordinance has not even been adopted.
4. Conclusion.
To the extent that I have not focused upon any particular issue, I wish to incorporate in
my concerns those comments which the Newport Mooring Association (of which I have been a
member for more than 5 years) has submitted to the City as though I has stated it myself.
Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
November 23, 2010
Page 4
It is my sincere hope that the City will not adopt the proposed ordinance and resolution. I
urge the City to refer the matter back to its staff to return with an ordinance and resolution along
the lines of the "transferability" document which was proposed by the Mooring Master Plan Sub -
Committee and Harbor Commission.
Sincerely,
SHERMAN L. STACE
SLS /sh
-*1l— )I-23`Gc�
ZtheLogCalifornia's Boating & Fishing Mews QP
Review Ahead for Newport Boater Fees - pg. 1 and Pg. 3, August 20 - Sept 2. by Ambrosia
Brody
Source: Daily pilot, LA Times, The Weekly Standard, Cato Institute, Chris Christie, Mike Whitehead,
Standard University, News Max,
Willie Brown,The Log, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, KFI News, Contra Costa Times, Syracuse Post,
Sacramento Bee, and others.
With all due courtesy to public employees, Councilman Rosansky and Selich have it backwards. Rosansky
and Selich should have said; Public employee expenses have been on the rise, with no end in sight.
Revenues have not followed. As the private sector is contracting we as a government are expanding.
Instead of rapeing the public more than we already have, especially those wo have less income, less
ability to pay, we need to look inward. What, we the public employees, need and must do, is go through
the same process as the private sector has had to endure.
The public sector employees, State and City, makes 30 to 40% more, and Federal 50% more in wages,
benefits and retirement while giving less in return. We, the public employees must cut our wages,
benefits and retirements till they are comparable to the private before we consider raising any more
taxes or fees up to 400 %. Especially, fees where we provide little or no service.
We, the public employees can do that by eliminating the departments whose only job is to create busy
work to justify their jobs. We the public employees can do that by eliminating all boards and committees
that only exist to make public relations statements and give lobbyists someone to talk to. We the public
employee can do that by not turning tax income property into tax liabilities. We the public employee can
do that by eliminating all full time positions that require part work including the mayor and city
council. We the public employee can do that by cutting our wages by 40 %, our benefits by 40% and
move all retirement funds into social security and not retire untill 70 years of age, instead of 42 to 55
years of age as currently practiced. We the public employees can stop building new city halls, parks, or
any other unecessaary constructions that are not needed or wanted. We the public employees will stop
creating codes and regulations, nor accept Federal Grants, that has it's only purpose to create more
public employees. We the public employees will reject anachronistic (HR 413) labor laws designed for the
early 20th. Century for a business model that no longer exists. We the public employees will stop using
drivel such as what other cities charge, fair market value, to boost tax and fees to support more public
employees wages and benefits. We the public employees will stop using little kids and seniors for an
excuse to raise tax or fees. We the public employees understand the unfunded pension debt in California
is over $500 billion and Nationwide over $3.2 Trillion. We the public employees admit the problems are
caused by us and we will be the remedy for the problems we have caused, before we raise any new tax
or fees.
California, also has two classes of citizens: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those who pay for
them. The City is a benefit, retirement and health insurance company that sweeps the streets and
supplies police services as a side job. The city has unwise contracts and rigid labor laws and no city
should have to choose between it's legitimate functions and paying benefits, health insurance and
pension funds.
August Lightfoot - Newport Beach, Ca.
Message body Page 1 of 1
?W4 a- Or- L4-
. N.B. mooring group responds
Sent:Sat 11/20/10 3:07 PM
To: Newport Council N0. 1 (mhenn527 @hotmail.com)
Nov. 20, 2010
N.B. mooring group responds
The Daily Pilot's Nov. 17 article on Newport Harbor boat storage charges does not accurately state the Newport
Mooring Assn.'s position. The issue is very simple: The primary use and function of Newport Harbor is boat
storage. More than 8,000 boats are stored on the bay.
Under state law, all boat owners who store boats on the bay are required to pay their fair share to store their
boat on the bay. For decades, the city has collected storage charges from the owners of 6,000 of the boats
stored on the bay. The other 2,000 boat owners have been allowed to store their boats free of charge, simply
because they are stored next to private docks connected to waterfront properties.
There is no law that allows the city to engage in this type of rate discrimination. Since 1980, rate discrimination
has cost the Tidelands Fund $40 million, leaving the city without money necessary to dredge and clean the bay.
The pending rate proposal perpetuates rate discrimination. It will also result in the loss of more than $2.5 million
in storage charges in 2011 alone.
The Newport Mooring Assn.
Newport Beach
Thought you might be interested in this commentary from the Pilot. If this is accurate it would seem to violate
the 'equal protection clause.'
August
http: / /snl28w.sntl28. mail .live.com /mail/RteFrame.htrnl ?v = 15.4.0332.1110 &pf =pf 11/22/2010
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 1 of 2
Mooring fee issue is on deck - by Joseph Serna - Nov. 7, 2010 pg. 1
From: AUGUST LIGHTFOOT (lightfoot228 @hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 11/09/10 11:11 AM
To: dkiff @newportbeachca.gov
From: Lightfoot
To: dailypilot @latimes.com
Subject: Mooring fee issue is on deck - by Joseph Serna - Nov. 7, 2010 pg. 1
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:09:18 -0800
Nov. 7, 2010
Letter to the Editor
"It was a simple kind of analysis, I challenge anyone to upend it," said City Manager Dave Kiff.
Mr. Kiff here is your challenge.
Public employee expenses have been on the rise, with no end in sight. As the private sector is
contracting we as a government are expanding. Instead increasing the tax burden disguised as user fees,
especially on those who have less income, less ability to pay, we need to look inward. What, we the
public employees, need and must do, is go through the same process as the private sector has had to
endure. The public sector employees, State and City, makes 30 to 40% more, and Federal SO% more in
wages, benefits and retirement.
We the public employees understand the unfunded pension debt in California is over $500 billion and
Nationwide over $3.2 Trillion.
We, the public employees must cut our wages, benefits and retirements till they are comparable to the
private before we consider raising any more taxes or fees.
We the public employee can do that by not turning tax income property into tax liabilities like Crystal
Cove and Marina Mobile Home Park. We the public employee can do that by eliminating all full time
positions that require part work including the mayor and city council.
We the public employees can stop building new city halls, parks, or any other unnecessary construction.
We the public employees can do that by eliminating all boards and committees that only exist to make
public relations statements and create codes rules and regulations that create busywork to justify our
jobs.
We the public employees will stop using drivel such as what other cities charge, fair market value, to
boost tax and fees that have no baring on actual cost of the services provided. Especially when a fair
comparison would be, mooring to detached docks in Long Beach, which would indicate about 35 to 45%
increase, if any. Not a 300% increase. Especially, when more fees (tax) have little to no connection or
service to the user. When the Gaelic Girl, a 38' sail boat was sunk by sea lions, we were told that it
was the responsibility of the owner or the public. All those user fees and tax did nothing. Except, for the
City to demand more restrictions; We the public employee will, allow one transfer, allow persons to stay
till the city want them gone, allow one family a benefit once. etc., etc., etc.
We the public employees will stop creating codes and regulations that restrict the privilege and rights
of mooring owners and home owners, especially, when the City has no vested interest or public good
regarding such restrictions. Except, control and power.
http://sn 128w. snt 128. mail .live.com /mail/PrintMessages. aspx ?cpids =4c3 cf6a6- 0ce6 -4ce 1 -... 11/22/2010
Windows Live Hotmail Print Message Page 2 of 2
F I-+
We the public employees will reject anachronistic (HR 413) labor laws designed for the early 20th.
Century for a business model that no longer exists.
We the public employees will honor the spirit and letter of Prop 13.
We the public employees will honor the spirit and letter of Prop 26.
We the public employees understand the unfunded pension debt in California is over $500 billion and
Nationwide over $3.2 Trillion. We the public employees admit the problems are caused by us and we will
be the remedy for the problems we have caused, before we raise any new tax or fees.
The City of Newport Beach has two classes of citizens: those who enjoy rich public benefits and those
who pay for them. The City has become a benefit, retirement and health insurance company that
sweeps the streets and supplies police services as a side job. The city has unwise contracts and rigid labor
laws and no city should have to choose between it's legitimate functions and paying benefits, health
insurance and pension funds.
August Lightfoot
PO Box 4251
Newport Beach, Ca.
714 - 318 -5603
Source: Daily pilot, LA Times, The Weekly Standard, Cato Institute, Chris Christie, Mike Whitehead, Standard University, News
Max,Len Bose,
Willie Brown,The Log, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, KFI News, Contra Costa Times, Syracuse Post, Sacramento Bee, and
others.
http://snl28w.sntl28. mail. live. corn/ mail /PrintMessages. aspx ?cpids= 4c3cf6a6- Oce6- 4cel -... 11/22/2010
11- 23- lOMooringlssue - 'att.net Mail'
MADE
Page 1 of 2
11- 23- 10Mooringlssue Monday, November 22, 2010 3:55 PM
From: "Brian @ Ouzounian Constructors, Inc." <brian.oci @sbcglobal.net>
To: "Keith Curry" <curry k @pfm.com >, "Leslie Daigle" <lesliejdaigle @aol.com >, "Nancy
Gardner" <Gard nerncy @aol.com>, "Michael Henn" <mhenn527 @hotmail.com >, "Steven
Rosansky" <parandigm @aol.com>, "Ed Selich" <edselich @roadrunner.com>, "Don
Webb" <don2we1bb @earth1ink.net>
Bcc:
"Mark Sites" <marklsites @yahoo.com>, "Doug Wood" <balboawood @yahoo.com >,
"Tom Ahern" <swordsman7 @gmail.com >, "Paul Balalis" <p1bala0s @bala1iscorp.com >,
"Phil Doane" <TONIDOANE@YAHOO.COM >, "Pete Pallette" <ppallette @aol.com >, "Tom
Tyson" <tomtyson @sbcglobal.net>, "Doug Wood" <balboawood @yahoo.com>
Dear Mayor Curry and Council Members:
I have been told that you will discuss an issue this Tuesday night at the council meeting concerning tripling the
rates on moorings and possibly add vessel fees to docks in Newport Harbor.
I am a resident of Newport Beach. I am a mooring and dock owner. I am not wealthy. I am trying to retire on a
small fixed income. I voted for a majority of you.
This is to voice my disagreement and my displeasure with your possible action to increase mooring fees by
3X and add vessel fees for boats that tie to our docks. I have the following points to make and I trust that you
will take my comments to heart and that you will NOT vote for the increases as proposed:
THIS ISSUE IS A TAX TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE RESIDENTS AND NPB PROPERTY OWNERS
-1 AM A SENIOR WHO IS TRYING TO RETIRE, I HAVE DREAM OF TEACHING MY GRANDCHILDREN TO
LOVE OUR HARBOR AND BOATING BUT I HAVE GREAT CONCERNS THAT I CAN'T AFFORD THIS TAX
AND ACCOMPLISH MY DREAM WITH THEM.
-ISN'T THE PROBLEM THE TRANSFER OR BROKERING OF MOORINGS, NOT FOR THOSE OF US SUCH
AS I WHO HAVE HAD A MOORING AND DOCK FOR 35 YEARS?
-FOR THOSE OF US WHO DO NOT BROKER OUR MOORINGS NOR DOCKS BUT MAINTAIN THEM FOR
OUR OWN PERSONAL PLEASURE USE, THIS IS A BURDENSOME TAX NOT JUSTIFIED
-THIS IS A TERRIBLE TIME, ECONOMICALLY TO IMPOSE MORE TAXES AS I AM SURE YOU MUST BE
AWARE
-THE PERCEPTION IS THAT THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY "WITCH HUNT."
-MY MOORING IS MAINTAINED BY ME FOR A COST OF ABOUT $250 EACH 2 YEARS, A MANDATORY
CITY REQUIREMENT, PERFORMED WITH A SELECT FEW VENDORS WITH NO WAY TO RECOUP THE
COSTS.
-THE MOORING COSTS ABOUT $1200/YEAR AS POSTED ON THE UTILITY OR WATER BILL, YET IT IS
VACANT 10 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. THE CITY ALLOWS HARBOR GUESTS TO MOOR ON OURS FOR A
FEE, TAKES ALL THE REVENUE, AND GIVES US NONE OF IT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE PAY ALL THE
FEES AND GET NO REVENUE. FAIR? NOW MORE TAXES?
-AS I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY'S FINANCIAL OPERATIONS, IT APPEARS THAT YOU
ARE USING THIS ISSUE AND US RESIDENTS TO SUPPORT OVER RUNS FOR OTHER DEFICITS,
INCLUDING THE NEW CITY HALL. IS THIS TRUE?
-IS THE CITY PLAYING A SHELL GAME OF REVENUE NEEDS ON THE BACKS OF US SENIORS AND
RESIDENTS?
http: / /us.mc81 I. mail. yahoo. com /mc /showMessage ?sMid =5 &fi d= Sent &filterBy = &. rand =... 11/22/2010
November 23, 2010
Dwight Belden
Fleet Captain and Director
Newport Harbor Yacht Club
720 West Bay Avenue, Balboa CA 92661
(949) 500 - 1110
nhyc@msn.com
Section 5.B.3.f of proposed Mooring Ordinance
Minor changes based on the last redline:
Line 5: Delete the last 3 words of that line " The
boundaries of ".
Line 6: Capitalize the T in "these" to start the
sentence.
Line 7: add the word "by" after "depicted"
The change in lines 5 and 6 will allow a mooring field to
change shape without increasing in size. This will allow
the ordinance to remain pliable to accommodate
changing navigational needs in critical channel areas over
time. We have seen vessel growth in length and beam
and governmental entities may need to make minor
boundary changes in the future.
"REC-IVE AFTERAGENDA
- ,PR,
Mum,
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL
11/19/10
PLEASE REVIEW MONTHLY FEES CHARGED BYCE,JTHER WEST
COAST HARBOR DEPARTMENTS. YOU WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THAT
YOUR PROPOSED FEE INCREASE IS A FOOLISH AND
DISCRIMINATORY MOVE. I URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR
PROPOSED FEE INCREASE AS IT IS CLEARLY OUT OF LINE.
SINCERELY
GERALD W. JUERGENS
Mr. Mayor and Newport Beach City Council ; - -- jl /ZVly
City Hall f 3
Newport Beach, CA 92660 l
Re: Proposed mooring fee increase
Dear elected representatives,
0-
Let me begin with congratulations on your recent successes at the voting booth and a reminder you
serve at the pleasure of your constituents, the good citizens /taxpayers of Newport Beach, many of
whom are boaters. That said, let me say that the City of Newport Beach (CNB) is lucky to have us,
the Boating Community! We are the lifeblood of this city. Our being here provides CNB with
promotional material that encourages tourism and tourist dollars as well as retail and real estate
profits. You are at a crossroads and have the opportunity to be leaders and standout amongst other
Southern California harbor cities, with an altruistic vision of your "revenue source ", the boating
community. They are the soul of Newport Beach.
• Being seen as a boater and marine industry friendly city could work very much in your favor
internationally. Be visionaries and see us as the asset we are. You have the opportunity to
foster the existing community, encourage future growth and subsidize Newport's heritage of
boating.
• Stop the creative zoning proposals that put this community at risk. Do tourists come here to
spend the day on the bay or at a cliff -side park viewing condos? No, they do not! We need
chandleries, marine hardware and software facilities, mechanical specialists, shipyards and
all the other boating related businesses on Newport Harbor's shores, not in Costa Mesa or
beyond. You'll loose the reason many people travel from all over the world to CNB to spend
their hard earned money if you don't take this opportunity to appreciate what you already
have, respect, and reward those that have made possible the quality of life we have available
today.
• With the distinction of the city with the highest priced real estate in the nation, CNB can
afford to be equitable and act with caution before establishing fee increases that are based on
manna slip fees established by land -based marinas with outrageous land values. Any
percentage of those slip fees is most certainly a very inflated base for pricing a mooring fee.
• Balancing the budget is essential. However, your "ad hoc committee" diminished it's own
recommendations because they didn't want to include anyone that may have a "conflict of
interest" amongst its members. How absurd is that to expect a well- rounded view of all the
possibilities from only three council members, without input from any of the stakeholders.
• Stepping back, taking some time and researching all the sources of additional revenue with
valuable input from long and short time residents, business people (including those involved
in the marine industry), Newport Mooring Association (NMA) and homeowner
representatives before loading higher fees on mooring lease holders seems prudent. You
may actually be able to lower fees.
If, however you do decide to go ahead with the proposed fee increases there is an issue you must
consider that has not been addressed by the council, a CNB buy -in.
• You can't just take and not be expected to give something for what we would additionally
contribute. The only mooring amenity available to us now is pump -out stations. That's
hardly an amenity, more a requirement for our harbor's health.
• Consider, there is nowhere we can go to wash down and clean up our boats or ourselves.
There are no dry storage areas for dinghies; limited short-term and no long -term in -water
storage; no launch ramps except the Dunes and no mooring lease- holder parking. These are
things we need. The harbor has not been dredged for 70 years so dredge it with the help of
Federal funds and save for future dredging needs. You also want us to allow our leased
moorings to be rented to transient boaters by CNB with none of the income going to the
lessee. We are required to maintain safe ground tackle so we pay for inspecting, servicing
and replacing when necessary, the mooring balls, chains and hardware every other year
(over $1,000 for me last year). Where is the fairness in that? If you want the income from
my mooring while I'm away than give the proceeds to me unless you want to purchase my
ground tackle and maintain it yourself.
o You can save valuable dollars going to Orange County Sheriff's Department by limiting the
areas Harbor Patrol Officers cruise. If you truly want to continue exempting the private dock
owners from paying their fair share of boat storage, while raising fees for the moorings than
logic demands you minimize Harbor Patrol duties in the areas of the Rhine Channel, North
Lido /PCH Channel, Dunes /Back Bay, Linda Island, Harbor Island, west end Balboa
Island/Bayside Drive and the harbor entrance, everywhere on -shore or off -shore moorings
are not present.
Transferability is a thom in your side so I suggest only two options:
o Family passing a lease to family. Not dead family! It makes little sense to require a
lessee to die before transferring a lease to a family member. With a prolonged illness or
limited mobility, a boater may be unable to access a moored boat for years before
passing away. All that would do is fill our bay with derelict boats. I want my boat to go
to a family member before years of sitting unattended. Let me transfer it to family
whenever I am unable to utilize it. If the family does not want to continue the lease they
can sell their boat within a few months and return the mooring to the city where it can go
to the first in -line on the wait list. The wait list should still be a viable source of
interested lessees. Those individuals believed in the first- come - first -served concept they
were promised and should not be let down. Transferability should not be a profit making
enterprise for the leaseholder or the CNB. Charge a $12 transfer fee and the deal is done!
I am still waiting for my name to come up from 1976,34 years.
o Individuals sell their boat as a package deal that includes the mooring lease. Requiring
the seller to submit a current survey showing the boat's true value to the Harbor
Commissioners for approval would take the profit taking out of the process. For those
that paid a premium for their lease, let them recoup the original purchase price at that
time and never again.
o I believe if you stop the profit taking now and monitor the transfers more closely, profit
taking will not be an issue in the near future. The wait -list will again become viable.
My recommendation to you as CNB "Leaders" would be to take a step back and:
o Develop a vision of this fine city that opens your eyes to an opportunity to act as stewards of
a unique resource by fostering the existing, encouraging growth in and subsidizing the
boating community and marine businesses on this unique harbor we love.
o Take your time researching equitable solutions from all stakeholders before raising fees.
o Consider my transferability simplification.
o Avoid the temptation to balance the budget on the back of those in the boating community
that can afford it least.
Respectfully yours,
Ross McElfresh
Resident CNB, Mooring lease holder
November 21, 2010
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA
92663
Dear Mayor Curry,
9
I am requesting that you vote to oppose the proposed mooring ordinance on Nov 23, 2010.
The Newport Mooring Association and others have made real valid points against this as to
its fairness, tripling of fees, not allowing transfers as have been allowed for many decades,
what services are actually provided to moored boats in return, etc.
I would like to 'show you that there is a more cultural and traditional objection to this
proposal. You see, I am a 65 year old native and always been a resident of Newport Beach. In
the 50's my dad (Donovan Gilmore Aakhus /founder of Lido Doors Inc. 1951) and I would go
down to the docks and shipyards and dream of boating and owning a bay front home with a
boat in front of it. Well, neither one of us could afford that bay front, but we could afford a
boat and mooring. We both have been able to raise families with a love of the bay, and boats,
thanks to the mooring transfer policy and reasonable fees that have been in effect for 50 to 60
years or greater. I fear that something will be lost in our "harbor town" if these practices are
drastically changed.
Yes, I have taken my kids down to the docks and boatyards and have had similar dreams with
them. However, will they be able to continue boating as it has been done for the history of
Newport Harbor, or will all of this be too expensive so that none of our children (yours
included) will be able to also enjoy boating in our beautiful Newport Harbor?
Please vote against this unfair proposal.
Thank you,
Donovan E. Aakhus,
Capt. Delta Airlines, Ret.
Newport Harbor High School, class of 1963
4509 Surrey Drive
Corona del Mar
Mooring permit holder
9
I..HAKLES tl. LLB WINq r L.L. r-
(714) 318 -3137 cell "' 1801 Windsor Lane
(714) 544 -4136 fax Santa Ana, CA 92705
chlewis @sbcglobal.net ru t: ,'o
November 16, 2010
Dave Kiff, City Manager
3300 Newport Blvd, Building B
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
Re: Newport Harbor Mooring Fee Increases and Transferability Changes
Dear Mr. Kiff,
I am writing to you to urge reconsideration of the proposed changes in mooring fees and transferability
going before the City Council on November 23. The current proposal will penalize mooring permit
holders by unfairly increasing fees and villainizing us by having transfer privileges severely limited.
As a holder of two mooring permits in the harbor (one offshore for my boat and one on -shore for my
dinghy), I paid above - market prices for both boats in order to have the owner transfer the moorings to
me - -an accepted and well known practice supported for decades. I also accepted all the challenges that
come with not having a slip, including no power, water, parking, docks to load and unload for trips,
protection from boats running into mine, and more frequent bottom painting due to sun exposure. Boats
on moorings are enormously hard work to use and have many other added costs and challenges.
At the time of my boat purchases, I read the proposals and language that were being developed related to
mooring changes and felt that fee increases and the transferability plan were both reasonable. The
current (and surprising) plan going before the council on the 23r1 includes unreasonable fee increases and
unnecessarily reduces the "value" of my moorings to perhaps nothing by eliminating transfers. Many
other options and models exist which would increase fees for the city (such as transfer fees) and not wipe
out mooring values.
When I purchased my boats, I had no intention of selling or trying to make a "profit" on my moorings- -
and certainly did not expect this type of unfair penalty. I maintain tidy boats, actively participate in the
local retail economy (gas, boating supplies, restaurants, boat services, and more), and make every effort
to be a good neighbor when using my boat. When did I become some sort of black market bad guy?
I urge you to reconsider the current fee proposal and return to the transferability plan previously on the
table. Clearly mooring holders will bear an unfair burden through these changes -- especially when one
learns about all the private docks and piers that will have no such transferability penalties or even have to
pay usage fees for having a boat in our public harbor.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lewis
cc Newport Beach City Council
Newport Mooring Association
Keith D. Curry
Mayor
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
Dear Mr. Mayor,
Christopher Bliss
24101 Gourami Bay
_ Dana Point, Ca 92629
949- 493 -3815
I attended the city council meeting last Tuesday, November 90' and am very concerned about the
proposed changes under consideration regarding the current mooring situation in Newport Harbor.
I have been a mooring lease holder for twenty years and fear that if the changes take place that the city has
proposed, I will be forced to sell my sailboat and give up the sailing lifestyle that my family and I have
enjoyed for so many years.
Listed below are a few points that may have been brought up at the meeting, but that I would like to
emphasize for your further consideration:
The current system (although it may not be perfect) has worked for nearly fifty years, and has in fact been
condoned by the city. I distinctly remember that when I bought my mooring, I checked fast with the
Harbor Department and was told, step by step, by one of the deputies exactly how to proceed with the
process of becoming a partner on the title of the boat on the mooring I was about to purchase, then after the
transfer happened, to take the other person off the title, and then I would become the sole owner of said
boat and mooring. I, along with every other mooring owner, paid a substantial sum of money for the
opportunity to have a place to keep my boat which was more affordable than a prohibitively expensive slip,
with the understanding that one day if we ever needed to give up boating, for whatever reason, we could get
the initial investment back. This is in effect a bit like leaving a really large security deposit on an apartment
rental, with the understanding that you will get it back when you leave. The city proposes that moorings
should be allowed to be transferred only one more time. This actually means that the current owners will
NEVER be able to sell their moorings because who in their right mind is going to buy a mooring for
substantial money if they themselves will never be allowed to sell ?!
I believe that it is mean- spirited and grossly unfair, after the city has gone along with this process for so
many years, to suddenly change the rules so that mooring owners can no longer transfer their moorings.
This loss of "equity" that all mooring owners will incur, along with nearly tripling the yearly fees is a
double - whammy that I feel will force hundreds of mooring owners to simply give up boating entirely. I
know that this will be true in my case.
Someone from the NHMA proposed an idea that I believe could be agreeable to the city and to the
mooring owners: enact a transfer fee so that every time a mooring is transferred, the city collects a
percentage (perhaps 5 or 10 %) of the sale price based on the estimated value of the mooring. This is a
reasonable idea that I think everybody could live with. I strongly endorse this idea, and hope that the city
council will give it due consideration.
At the beginning of the meeting, several financial charts were shown that illustrated the budget deficits
due to the high costs of harbor maintenance and dredging. It seems to me that the people who own and live
in the hundreds of ultra high -end waterfront homes with private docks on the bay are the ones in the best
position to contribute to these costs, not the mooring owners, the vast majority of whom are certainly not
wealthy. Many of the private dock owners rent their dock space for thousands of dollars, use the tidelands
in exactly the same way that the mooring owners do, but have not been threatened with huge fee increases,
although they could probably afford to pay them. This really seems like just another example of "screw the
little guy."
Newport Harbor is a beautifid gem that is famous all over the world. All the people who live here benefit
from being near this beautiful harbor, and it is largely the sailing and boating activities that come to mind
when people envision Newport Harbor. Please do not approve the proposed draconian changes regarding
mooring ownership, as it will adversely affect so many people.
Thank yo
C sthrY oph /Bliss
S
all
ate:
November 15, 2010
Mayor Keith D. Crory
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd,
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Mayor Pro Tern Michael F. Henn
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Councilmember Steven Rosansky
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Councilmember Don Webb
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: NMA's Request to:
Councilmember Leslie Daigle
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Councilmember Edward D. Selich
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Councilmember Nancy Gardner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
1. Place NAM s Enclosed Mooring Rate Proposal on the November 23, 2010
City Council Agenda
2. Table Action on the Rate Proposal Currently Before the Council, Pending a
Full Review of NMA's Proposal
Dear Mayor and City Council:
On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association ( "NMA "), we would like to
thank each of you for the patience and understanding you have demonstrated in
seeking a fair and reasonable solution to pending Harbor Fee issues. We have read
and listened carefully to the proposals of the City Manager. We have considered the
1
Newport Mooring Association • P.O. Box 1118 • Newport Beach, CA 92659
I
Mayor Keith D. Curry and City Council
Re: Newport Mooring Assn. Rate Proposal
Page 2
November 15, 2010
legal memoranda prepared for Council by the City Attorney. We have listened and
understood the comments of various Council Members and the City Attorney. And .
most important, we are fully cognizant of the significant financial commitment that
the City must make to preserve and maintain Newport Harbor for public use as a
navigable and ecologically sound body of water.
While it often sounds as though the NMA is at odds with the City on these
issues, a review of NMA'a attached rate proposal demonstrates that NMA is largely in
agreement with the City Manager and the City Attorney on the fundamental concepts
surrounding Harbor Fee issues. NMA also believes that there is a simple and
comprehensive solution that better resolves the projected harbor revenue short fall,
and which fully addresses the legal and public policy concerns arising from the
exclusive, private use of public property that is the Tidelands.
The ongoing debate over mooring rates leads to one inescapable conclusion:
The only viable solution to projected revenue short falls is a storage charge for all
boats stored on the Tidelands. The storage charge (or "rate ") should be paid by the
owner of each boat stored on the Tidelands (although in the case of a commercial or
City operated marina, the storage charge is presumed to be collected as part of the slip
fee).
Boat storage is the primary use of the bay. On any given day, over 8000
citizens are storing a boat on Newport Harbor. In contrast, only several hundred
citizens are actually boating on the harbor at any one time. The law requires the City
to obtain fair storage charges from the owners of all boats stored on Newport Harbor.
Rate discrimination is costing the public's Tidelands funds over $3 million per year.
NMA's attached proposal, if adopted, will generate roughly $4 million in
annual Tidelands revenue starting in 2011, increasing annually based on the
Consumer Price Index. The other proposal currently before the Council will generate
only $910,000 in 2011, escalating in annual increments to $2.1 million in 2015. And
importantly, NMA's proposal does away with decades of rate discrimination on the
bay, while the competing proposal perpetuates the problem.
01
Mayor Keith D. Curry and City Council
Re: Newport Mooring Assn. Rate Proposal
Page 3
November 15, 2010
ACTION REQUESTED:
NMA respectfully requests that Council do the following:
1. Table the mooring rate proposal currently before Council, and (if necessary)
remove it from the November 23, 2010 Consent Calendar;
2. Place NMA's attached proposal on the November 23, 2010 agenda as "Current
Business," and take public comment;
3. Schedule NMA's Proposal for a subsequent Study Session and for public
comment at that time•, and
4. Work up both competing proposals as necessary (in subsequent study
session(s), and/or as Current/Continued Business), in order to allow both
proposals a full and transparent review by Council and the public, before
Council votes on either proposal.
On behalf of the Board of the Newport Mooring Association, we again thank
you again for your time and consideration.
Very Truly Yours,
#411-�
BILL MOSES, Secretary
Newport Mooring Association
Enclosures (1) Rate Proposal; (2) 11.15. 10 Press Release
cc: David Kiff, City Manager
Leilana I. Brown, City Clerk
David R. Hunt, City Attorney
cc: Copy sent Via Overnite Mail to Personal Addresses of all Public Officials
3
I
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION
A NON - PROFIT ASSOCIATION OF MOORED BOAT OWNERS
NMA's RATE PROPOSAL FOR
TIDELANDS BOAT STORAGE CHARGES
The Newport Mooring Association respectfully requests that the City of
Newport Beach set annual storage rates for all classes of boats stored on Newport
Harbor. This proposal has three parts:
1. NMA's Rate Proposal for All Boats Stored on the Tidelands
2. Estimates of Tidelands Revenues under NMA's Rate Proposal
3. Governing Concepts Supporting NMA's Rate Proposal
I. LAMA'S RATE PROPOSAL FOR ALL STORED BOATS:
A. Off -shore Moorings: $30 per foot per year
B. Shore -Tie Moorings: $15 per foot per year
C. Boats Tied to Private Piers: $30 per foot per year
D. Commercial Marinas and City Operated Yacht Basins: Included in
Slip Fees and Marina Rent
E. Administrative Fees: Based on actual cost; charged in addition to storage
charges
1
II. ESTIMATE OF TIDELANDS REVENUE FROM STORAGE CHARGES
The annual revenue estimate for NMA's proposal is $3,591,000 per year
starting immediately in 2011, exclusive of administrative fees. With administrative
fees for permits and harbor patrol enforcement costs, etc., NMA's proposal generates
roughly $4 MILLION PER YEAR in Tidelands revenue. Further, it can be indexed to
the Consumer Price Index to stay current.
NMA's revenue estimate is based on the following:
A. Off -shore Moorings: $30 per foot per year: Estimated Annual Revenue:
$900,000
Gross Footprint: Assuming the current vacancy rate continues, the City
permits 750 off -shore moorings. The estimated average "footprint" for each of these
moorings is 40 feet. The total "footprint" of the Tidelands occupied exclusively by
offshore moorings is therefore 30,000 feet [750 boats X 40 feet = 30,000 linear feet of
total "footprint. "].
Total Annual Storage Charge Revenue: Annual storage charge revenue for off-
shore moorings will be $ 900,000 [30,000 linear feet of "gross footprint" X $30].
B. Shore -Tie Moorings: $15 per foot per year: Estimated Annual
Revenue: $108,000
Gross Footprint: Assuming the current vacancy rate continues, the City
permits 400 on -shore moorings. The estimated average "footprint" for each of these
moorings is 18 feet. The total "footprint" of the Tidelands occupied exclusively by
boats stored at shore moorings is 7200 feet [400 boats X 18 feet = 7200 linear feet of
total "footprint. "].
Total Annual Storage Charge Revenue: Annual storage charge revenue for
shore moorings will be $108,000 [7200 linear feet of "gross footprint" X $15].
2
C. Boats Tied to Private Piers: $30 per foot per year: Estimated Annual
Revenue: $2,583,000
Gross Footprint: NMA estimates that there are roughly 2460 boats tied to
private piers. The estimated average "footprint" for each of these boats is 35 feet. The
estimated total "footprint" of the Tidelands occupied exclusively by boats stored at
private piers is 86,100 linear feet [2460 boats X 35 feet = 86,100 linear feet of total
"footprint."].
Total Annual Storage Charge Revenue: Annual storage charge revenue for
boats tied to private piers will be $2,583,000 [86,100 linear feet of "gross footprint" X
$30].
D. Commercial Marinas and City Operated Yacht Basins: Included in Slip
Fees and Marina Rent
Again, NMA assumes that the rent paid by commercial marinas to the City and
the slip rent collected by the City in the yacht basins includes the "fair value storage
charge" for each boat stored on the Tidelands occupied by the marina. Therefore,
NMA provides no "breakout" figure for storage charges of boats stored on Tidelands
under the control of commercial and City marinas.
III. OVERVIEW OF GOVERNING CONCEPTS:
A. NMA's Proposal Boosts Tidelands Revenues More than Any Other
Proposal Before the City Council
First and foremost, NMA's proposal raises the revenue stream from Tidelands
boat storage significantly more than the mooring rate increase proposed by the City
Manager.
The annual revenue estimate for NMA's proposal is $3,591,000 per year
starting immediately in 2011, exclusive of administrative fees. With administrative
fees for permits and harbor patrol enforcement costs, etc., NMA's proposal generates
roughly $4 MILLION PER YEAR in Tidelands revenue. Further, it can be indexed to
the Consumer Price Index to stay current.
3
In contrast, the proposal that City Council has before it generates only $910,000
in 2011 including administrative fees, less than 25% of NMA's proposed revenue
stream. By 2015, this proposed rate scheme will generate only $2.1 million including
administrative fees, less than 50% of NMA's proposal (assuming NMA's proposed
rates are tied to the CPI).
B. NMA's Proposal Puts an End to Decades of Rate Discrimination
As demonstrated above, rate discrimination is costing the public's Tidelands
funds over $3 million per year.
The law requires the City to obtain fair storage charges from the owners of all
boats stored on Newport Harbor. NMA's proposal also resolves nearly all of the
competing concerns that have been expressed regarding mooring rates, in a fair,
lawful and politically neutral manner that does not favor the owner of Any boat, no
matter how or where the boat is stored on the Tidelands.
C. Boat Storage is the Primary and Prevalent "Use" of the Granted
Tidelands:
On any given day, there are over 8000 private boats stored on waters of the
Newport Harbor Tidelands. The boats are stored in marinas, at private piers, and at
City permitted moorings. In contrast, actual boating on the Tidelands is typically
limited to a few hundred boats (or less) at any given time. Accordingly, boat storage
is the primary, and the most prevalent "use" of the Tidelands.
D. The City Must Obtain "Fair Value" for the Storage of ALL Boats on
the Public Tidelands:
The City is obligated by law to obtain "fair value" for any private "use" of the
bay that excludes the public. It goes without saying that a boat lawfully stored on the
Tidelands uses a "footprint" of the Tidelands to the exclusion of the public. Thus, all
private yacht storage on the Tidelands is an "exclusive use" of public property. As a
result, the City is required to charge the owner of each stored boat "fair value" for the
"footprint" of the Tidelands occupied by the stored boat.
4
NMA refers to this concept generically as a "storage charges," and to the
amount charged for storage as the "rate." But, as pointed out by the City Attorney, the
storage charge can also be viewed as a "fee" for a license to exclusively occupy a
small part of the Tidelands, or simply as "rent" for the exclusive use of public
property. In all of these cases, the City acts as the "proprietor" of the Tidelands, in
effect "renting" public property to private individuals for "fair value."
E. NMA's Proposed Rate is the "Fair Value" of the Tidelands
"Footprint" Occupied by Each Stored Boat.
Rates should be set by determining the "fair value" of the "footprint" that a
stored boat occupies exclusively on the Tidelands.
1. Fair Value of the "Footprint" of Open Water (or "Offshore') Moorings:
$30 per foot per year starting in 2011.
The fair value of open water moorings (as opposed to shore -tie moorings) has
been determined with reference to mooring rates charged in other similar harbors in
Southern California. This remains the best and only known reliable means of
determining the fair value of a "footprint" of open, navigable water in the Tidelands.
The rate is currently $20 per foot per year, based on a 1995 fair value
determination by City Council. Even though $20 per foot is well above the regional
average for open water mooring rates, the $20 per foot determined in 1995 is likely
within the City's discretion, as would be a CPI - indexed rate increase to roughly $30
per foot per year starting in 2011.
2. Fair Value of the Footprint of Boats Tied to Shore Moorings:
$15 per foot per year starting in 2011.
Because shore moorings are largely unique to Newport Harbor in Southern
California, there is no reliable "comparative rate analysis" for the value of the
"footprint" of boats tied to shore moorings. "Footprints" at shore moorings typically
do not occupy open, navigable waters. For this and other reasons, the City has
estimated the "fair value" of shore moorings at 50% of "offshore" moorings. This
5
appears to be reasonable, and therefore within the City's discretion. Beginning in
2011, the rate for storing a boat at a shore mooring should be $15 per foot per year.
3. Fair Value of the Footprint of Boats Tied To A Private Pier:
$30 per foot per year starting in 2011.
Arguably, Tidelands that can be annexed via a pier affixed to the adjacent
upland should be more valuable than Tidelands accessible only by boat (such as the
"footprint" of an off -shore mooring). Nevertheless, NMA proposes that the owners of
boats stored on Tidelands adjacent to private piers pay the same storage charge as the
owners of boats tied to offshore moorings: $30.00 per foot.
PRC 6503.5 Does Not Apply: Importantly, the prohibition on charging "rent"
for private piers (Public Resources Code section 6503.5) does not apply to the
"footprint" of the Tidelands occupied by a boat tied to the pier. Rather, the "rent free"
provisions in PRC 6503.5 apply only to the "fixed facility" that is the "recreational
pier" itself. There is no law that allows or even encourages the City to grant boat
owners the right to store their boats an here on the Tidelands free of charge. (See
NMA's 11.9.10 memo to City Council detailing this point.)
4. Fair Value of the Footprint of Boats Stored in Marinas on the Tidelands:
Included in Slip Rent
Owners of boats stored at commercial and City owned marinas pay rent for the
slips. This rent makes its way to the City directly (at City owned Marinas), or
indirectly (in the form of lease payments to the City by commercial marina owners).
Based on current slip rates on the Tidelands, NMA assumes that the City is receiving
fair value for the Tidelands "footprint" exclusively occupied by each boat stored in a
slip at a commercial or City -owned marina.
Continued on next page.
n
E.
Storage Charges are NOT Administrative Fees. Both Can and
Should be Charged:
The storage charge is separate and apart from, and in addition to, administrative
fees associated with pier permits and mooring permits. To comply with Article XIII
of the Constitution, these administrative fees should be based on the actual cost to
administer private piers and the mooring fields. These permit fees are paid by the
permit holder (which, in the case of a private pier, is often a different person than the
owner of the boat(s) tied to the private pier).
The City is currently calculating and re- setting these administrative charges.
Accordingly, the City can update these administrative fees in conjunction with the
setting of a comprehensive rate schedule for all Tidelands boat storage.
F. NMA's Proposal Avoids Unlawful Gifts of Public Property and Rate
Discrimination:
The proposal outlined above eliminates concerns regarding gifts of public
property currently being made to thousands of boat owners who exclusively occupy a
significant "footprint" on the Tidelands free of charge (and in apparent violation of
Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution). And it eliminates concerns
about "discriminatory rates" for the storage of boats on the Tidelands, as prohibited by
section 1(d) of the Tidelands Grant.
G. Enforcement Will Be Manageable:
All boats stored outside of commercial and City owned marinas would require a
"storage permit." In addition to the applicable annual "fair value" storage charge, the
storage permit holder would pay an administrative fee to cover the actual cost of
issuing, tracking, and enforcing storage permits. Each boat with a storage permit
would be issued an easily identifiable sticker that bears the individual permit file
number for the boat to which the sticker must be affixed.
Storage permits would be issued by the Harbor Resources Department. The
Harbor Resources Department storage permit file would state the authorized location
for the storage of the boat on the Tidelands, identify the boat owner /permit holder, and
state the amount paid and the "class" of storage being charged (e.g., off -shore
mooring, private pier, etc.)
Mooring permits would double as storage permits.
Boats identified by the Harbor Patrol as being stored without a permit could be
issued a "parking ticket" akin to a "fix it" ticket. Boat owners could "fix" the ticket
by simply obtaining a storage permit for their boat.
H. Transferability and the Commercial Use of Private Piers:
NMA's rate proposal disposes of all critical issues except two: (1) Mooring
permit transferability; and (2) Private pier owners' operation of "mini- marinas" (i.e.,
the rental of slips and tie -ups at private piers for thousands of dollars per year, under
which private pier owners make money "renting" the public's Tidelands).
1. Re: Transferability:
NMA believes the transferability issue should be resolved separately, after the
City establishes a fair and lawful rate structure for all Tidelands boat storage charges,
and after Council has had time to consider the extensive work up on this issue
performed in 2008 and 2009 by the Harbor Commissioner. NMA is respectful of the
City Attorney's opinion here, and believes that a lawful solution to the transferability
issue can be reached along the lines of the proposed Transfer Ordinance developed
last year with the Harbor Commissioner.
2. Re: Private Pier "Mini- Marinas: "
NMA has no position on private pier owners' operation of commercial mini -
marinas, and this proposal is not intended to address that issue. The City has already
indicated its intent to examine this issue separately. NMA agrees that this issue (like
the transferability issue) is distinct from the rates issue covered in this proposal, and
should therefore be dealt with separately, as well.
9
NEWPORT MOORING ASSOCIATION
A NON - PROFIT ASSOCIATION OF MOORED BOAT OWNERS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
FROM: Newport Harbor Mooring Association
RE: Mooring Rates (and Mooring Transfers)
DATE: November 15, 2010
NMA represents the owners of over 1000 boats tied to moorings in Newport Harbor. NMA appreciates
the growing public interest in mooring rates issues now before the Newport Beach City Council.
NMA's primary concern is with the annual fees that the City of Newport Beach charges the owners of
moored boats to store their boats on the public waterway in Newport Harbor. These fees already
exceed the annual storage charges for moored boats in other similar Southern California harbors. NMA
is also concerned that the current rate structure in Newport Harbor unlawfully discriminates against the
owners of moored boats.
Most boats stored in Newport Harbor are tied to private docks (known as "private piers ") in front of
waterfront properties. The City allows the owners of boats tied to private piers to store them on the
bay free of charge. This appears to be an unconstitutional gift of public property to the owners of boats
stored at private piers.
At the same time, the City charges the owners of moored boats an average of $800 per year to store
their boats on Newport Harbor. The City's decades -long rate discrimination against moored boat
owners, and in favor of the owners of boats tied to private piers, is prohibited under state law (section
1(d) of the Tidelands Grant).
Boat storage is the primary use of the bay. On any given day, over 8000 citizens are storing a boat on
Newport Harbor. In contrast, only several hundred citizens are actually boating on the harbor at any one
time.
The law requires the City to obtain fair storage charges from the owners of all boats stored on Newport
Harbor. Rate discrimination is costing the public's Tidelands funds over $3 million per year.
NMA has submitted a proposal to the City Council establishing lawful, non - discriminatory rates for the
owners of all boats stored on the bay. NMA's proposal, if adopted, would immediately raise Tidelands
revenues from boat storage (excluding revenue from commercial and city -owned marinas) from
$800,000 per year to roughly $4 million per year - -- simply by requiring the owners of all boats to pay
fair value for the right to store their boat on the public waterway. Under NMA's proposal, all boat
owners who benefit from storing their boats on Newport Harbor would pay their fair share of the rapidly
rising cost of maintaining the bay as a navigable and ecologically sound public waterway.
1
NMA urges the Newport Beach City Council to put NMA's proposal on its November 23, 2010 agenda,
and to ensure full and complete participation from all boat owners in keeping our harbor clean, and
open to the boating public.
Finally, NMA takes no position on the value of a mooring permit. A mooring permit allows a boat owner
to store a boat at a designated mooring on the public waterway for one year. Historically, these permits
have taken on value when transferred privately from one boat owner to another. Although the City of
Newport Beach has been aware of the "transfer value" of moorings for decades - -- even auctioning
vacant moorings itself on occasion - -- the City retains the right to regulate the transfer of mooring
permits.
NMA is concerned that the City is now relying on the private transfer value of mooring permits to justify
ongoing rate discrimination against the owners of moored boats. NMA's rate proposal puts an end to
decades of rate discrimination on the bay, while at the same time allowing the City to regulate mooring
transfers. Mooring transfers and boat storage rates are separate and unrelated issues, and NMA urges
the City to treat them that way.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
NMA Secretary Bill Moses
c/o NMA Counsel
Greg Hatton
949 - 474 -4222
Harbor Charges:
Moorings
Revised Proposal
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Newport Beach City Council
What we'll cover
Goal: Fair Market Value
Other Committee Principles
Recommended changes resulting from
past meetings' input (and
correspondence).
Rate Proposal, Transfer Proposal
Some Q &A
Recommended Actions
Overall Goal,* fair MarketV;)Iijp
Fair Market Value (FMV)
Moorings are not at FM V now. How do we
know?
The market tells us. Significant private market for
mooring permit transfers.
Rates in other harbors (mooring:berth ratios)
Lowest found is 14 %, High is 30 %+
Current rate in Newport Harbor = 5%
What is Fair MarketValue?
Mission Bay
Mooring rates are --14% of slip rates
Driscoll and Hyatt are marina comparisons. Mooring permit holders own /maintain
tackle
Monterey Bay
Mooring rates appear to be — 14.5% of slip rates
Outer Harbor Moorings and Breakwater Cove are comparisons. Privately -held
tackle in the Outer Harbor
Pillar Point
Mooring rates are about —15% of slip rates. Mooring district owns tackle.
San Diego
Mooring rates are — 18.5% of slip rates. SD Mooring Co owns mooring tackle.
It would be - 17% if adjusted to reflect private ownership of tackle.
Morro Bay
Mooring rates are about — 31.7% of slip rates.
What else is based on FMV?
Beacon Bay Residences (72 homes)
Balboa Bay Club
Balboa Island Ferry
American Legion Marina Lease
Basin Marine Shipyard
Galley Cafe
Harbor Marina
Harbor Island Residential Leases
Lido Isle Community Assn (Marina)
Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club
Is the City's "14V Proposal FMV?
We believe so — here's why:
Review of other harbors' mooring:berthing
ratio — 14% is the low side.
Cap Rate Analysis (40' mooring) shows that
even the City's 2015 amount may be lower
than FMV:
• Take an investment of $33,875 (mooring transfer price)
A revenue /cost of $800 /year.
Cap rate of 4.4%
• Value = $2,290.50 (($33,875 0.044) + $800)
• City's Proposed Rate in 2015 = $2,107.00
Moorings — Committee Principles
Outcome should:
Be based on Fair Market Value.
Be responsive to market conditions — rates up
or down based on same.
Be fair, reasonable, and legally defensible.
Be phased in over time.
Improve accessibility to boating in the Harbor.
Result in a charge that is annually updated.
Harbor has important projects and
amenities to fund in the coming years.
Listening from Last Meeting
Committee proposed these changes
based on last meeting:
Modified selection of Marina Index
Reflects meeting with BYB stakeholders last week.
Results in slightly lower rates.
Modified transfer provisions to extend time
Existing permits - 2x in the next 10 years
Wait list permits — no ability to transfer
Listening from I ast MP-P-ting
Committee proposed these changes
based on last meeting:
City to pay FMV for tackle when mooring
permit returned to the wait list
Reiterated:
Staff to regularly review mooring status annually.
Make the Interest List function, and function quickly.
City -held permits (five) to go to Interest List
quickly.
RATE PROPOSAL
Rate Proposal
Proposal:
Offshore mooring permits
Set at 14% of an average of mod -low marina slip rates in the
harbor (they are now at about 5 %).
Onshore Mooring permits
Half of offshore pricing.
Implement increase over five periods. When "caught
up" should catch up to 14% of slip rates in 2015.
Review annually to ensure that pricing is appropriate.
Consistent with OC Grand Jury's recommendation that:
(mooring permits be) fair market value ... e.g., based on a
percentage of the cost of a slip.
Proposed Rates (40' offshore mooring)
Mooring.-Slip Ratio
Monthly Increase
Annual Increase
Note: Prices not adjusted for inflation, up or down.
Previous rate proposal:
• Ended at $2,449
• Increase was about $320 /year
Proposed NH Marina Index (revised based
on BYB discussions)
Slip
Bayside
Harbor
Lido Yacht
Newport
Port
Average
Ardel I
Anchorage
Swales
Lengths
Village
Marina
(Bellport)
Dunes
Calypso
Rate
30'
$26.17
$24.00
$19.50
$29.00
1 $26.00
$17.00
$23.61
40'
$33.13
$37.50
$30.00
$39.50
$30.00
$18.00
$31.35
50'
1 $37.50
$35.90
$41.00
$31.50
$42.00
$30.00
$20.00
$33.99
NH Marina Index — 7 Marina Locations
Rate-Setting Process
Survey the Index Marinas, take an average
rate for all Mooring lengths.
In 2011, multiply by 7.1
In 2012, by 8.8 %;
In 2013, by 10.5; etc.
Harbor Resources Manager evaluates
market conditions annually, recommends
changes if necessary.
Harbor Resources Manager evaluates index
marinas annually, makes changes if
necessary.
Other Rate Suggestions
NMA suggestions:
Adjust by Consumer Price Index since 1996 (LA- Riv -OC)
40' mooring would go to $1,1 13.77 /year.
• Higher- than City's 201 1 proposed rate. ($1,063)
Go to $30 /LF /Yr for offshore and $15 /LF /Yr for onshore.
40' mooring would go from $800 /year to $1,200 /year.
• City's proposed 201 1 rate = $27 /LF /Yr and 2012 = $35 /LF /Yr
Comparing San Diego and Newport:
NMA's concept of proportionality.
Auction:
End all annual renewals.
Invite closed bids on every mooring.
Current holder gets right of first refusal, must meet or
exceed bid price.
TRANSFER PROPOSAL
Comparing Approaches
Harbor Commission's
Issue
Current Practice
"Transferability
Ad Hoc Committee
Document"
Proposal
Numberoftimesa
Unlimited
• ix /year.
• One permit location
person can transfer a
• Person receiving
can be transferred
mooringpermit
mooringpermit
2x/10 years (between
cannot hold more
now and December
than 2 other mooring
31, 2020).
permits.
• StartingJanuary 1,
• Additional transfers
2021, transfers
allowed at Harbor
prohibited.
Resources Managers
discretion.
FamilyTransfers
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed within
Immediate Family.
One - for -One Exchanges
Allowed
Allowed with
Offshore — offshore or
permission of Harbor
onshore — onshore
Resources Manager.
allowed with
permission of Harbor
Resources Manager.
Comparing Approaches
Newboatowner:
Boat buyertransfers
Boat buyertransfers
City acquires seller's
aj Buys boat on a
boat title and mooring
boat title and mooring
tackle for FMV, alloevs
mooring, boat
permit name, maintains
permit name, maintains
boat buyerto remain
seller %mooring
the mooring permit
the mooring permit
on the mooring for up
rdoesn't
indefinitely.
indefinitely.
to months.
want mooring
permit.
New boat owner:
Boat buyer must
Boat buyer must
City ;will, if space
bj Buys boat on a
independently find a
independently find a
available, provide a sub -
mooring, boat seller
berth orothermooring.
berth orothermooring.
permit mooring location
wants to keep
for up to six months.
moorin permit
TransferFee
Nominalfee (under
City receives _`k of
Betaveen nokv and 2020,
S50).
the annual mooring
City receives 50% of the
permit charge.
annual mooring permit
charge.
Comparing Approaches
Ownership of Mooring
MooringgermMees
Same as current. If
Retain private
Tackle (can, chains)
o.vn and maintain
surrendered, must
ownership of tackle, but
• Value is about S1K
tackle.
remove tackle within 30
City would purchase
new.
days or tackle becomes
used tackle for ^'$2K if a
• Annual maintenance
City's tackle.
person returned a
= about S250-
mooring to the wait list.
5300 /year
Then City would sell
tackle to the next
person at the mooring,
also for -$2K.
Sub- Permittingof
Harbor Patrol may put a
Defines&allowsLong
Same asTransferability
Moorings
visitingvessel
Term (1 month to 12
Document, but referred
temporarily on a can.
months) and Short
to as sub - permitting.
Term (up to 30 days)
rentals. City to charge a
feefordoingso.
Wait list (Interest List)
Implement a true waiting list promptly.
Process:
Harbor Resources to propose updated rules and
processes for Interest List.
Similar to Balboa Yacht Basin wait list.
Mooring permits assigned off the wait list
will not be able to transfer.
City will pay FMV for tackle when a
mooring goes back to the Wait List.
QUESTIONSAND
ANSWERS FROM LAST
TIME
Q &A —Last Time
Does the mooring to berthing ratio (14 %)
take into effect Newport Harbor's private
ownership of tackle?
Aren't moorings supposed to be an
affordable alternative to berthing?
Has the City itself "sold" moorings?
Is an appraisal needed to set mooring
rates?
From 5% to 14% ...
$20.000
$18,000
$16.000
$14.000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4.000
$2.000
2010
Berthing Index Rate
Lido Dry Slips _
-- BYC Rate. Dunes Lot Rate -- - - -
Bayside Wbse n
T
2011 2012 2013
Proposed Mooring Rate
CPI Adjusted Rate in Year I
2014 2015
Assumes 2% inflation for berthing rates
Moorings After Purchase
$45,000
$40.000
$35,000
$30,000
$25.000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5.000
f-
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Q &A —Last Time
Financial Analysis:
Unsecured Property Tax.
Sales Tax.
Tidelands Fund.
Federal Contributions towards Lower Newport
Bay Dredging.
One time expenses v. ongoing expenses.
Why not address other Harbor properties?
Why only focus on Newport Harbor
comparables?
A — l_astTime
Doesn't existing system work just fine
right now?
RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS
Recommended Action Summary
Adoption of Resolution X
• Increases rates over five years X
• Sets forth Marina Index X
• Gives authority to Harbor Resources to review X
market on rates (and report back)
• Gives authority to Harbor Resources to change X
Index as needed.
First Reading of Ordinance X
• Limits transfers to 2x/ 10 years to 2020, then X
prohibited
• Authorizes familial transfers, like - for -like X
• Second reading required, if adopted X
Proposed Addition to Resolution
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach that the price adjustments for
moorings set forth in this Resolution for 2013
and successive years shall take place only if the
City Council has completed its open and public
review, analysis, and where applicable, price
adjustments of Other Harbor Charges on or
before September 30, 2012. The Other Harbor
Charges to be reviewed and analyzed are slips,
garages, and apartments at the Balboa Yacht Basin,
commercial piers not already on leases, and
residential piers, including rentals of residential
piers.
Attachment D
Mooring Practices Today & Proposed fREVISED for 11 -23 -2010)
Harbor Commission's
Issue
Current Practice "Transferability
Ad Hoc Committee
Document"
Proposal
Number of times a
Unlimited
• 1x /year.
• One permit location
person can transfer a
• Person receiving
can be transferred
mooring permit
mooring permit
2x /10 years (between
cannot hold more
now and December
than 2 other mooring
31, 2020).
permits.
• Starting January 1,
• Additional transfers
2021, transfers
allowed at Harbor
prohibited.
Resources Manager's
discretion.
Family Transfers
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed within
Immediate Family.
One - for -One Exchanges
Allowed
Allowed with
Offshore - offshore or
permission of Harbor
onshore- onshore
Resources Manager.
allowed with
permission of Harbor
Resources Manager.
New boat owner:
Boat buyer transfers
Boat buyer transfers
City acquires seller's
a) Buys boat on a
boat title and mooring
boat title and mooring
tackle for FMV, allows
mooring, boat
permit name, maintains
permit name, maintains
boat buyer to remain
seller /mooring
the mooring permit
the mooring permit
on the mooring for up
permittee doesn't
indefinitely
indefinitely.
to 6 months .
want mooring
permit.
New boat owner:
Boat buyer must
Boat buyer must
City will, if space
b) Buys boat on a
independently find a
independently find a
available, provide a sub -
mooring, boat seller
berth or other mooring.
berth or other mooring.
permit mooring location
wants to keep
for up to six months.
mooring permit
Transfer Fee
Nominal fee (under
City receives _% of
Between now and 2020,
$50).
the annual mooring
City receives 50% of the
permit charge.
annual mooring permit
charge.
Ownership of Mooring
Mooring permittees
Same as current. If
Retain private
Tackle (can, chains)
own and maintain
surrendered, must
ownership of tackle, but
• Value is about $4K
tackle.
remove tackle within 30
City would purchase
new.
days or tackle becomes
used tackle for -52K if a
• Annual maintenance
City's tackle.
person returned a
= about $250-
mooring to the wait list.
$300 /year
Then City would sell
tackle to the next
person at the mooring,
Harbor Patrol may put a
Defines & allows Long
also for -S2 K.
Same as Transferability
Sub- Permitting of
Moorings
visiting vessel
Term (I month to 12
Document, but referred
temporarily on a can.
months) and Short
to as sub - permitting.
Term (up to 30 days)
rentals. City to charge a
fee for doing so.
Rental Rates
Daily = $5. Proposed @
To be determined by
To be determined by
$15 -$25 /day.
Council.
Council.
Wait List
A wait list exists, but
Creates "Mooring
Same as Transferability
rarely if ever moves.
Interest List' like a wait
Document.
Yes.
list.
Yes, lx/year.
No. Prohibited.
Can a person who
received a mooring
permit off the wait list
transfer that mooring
permit?
Multiple Vessel
Not expressly allowed,
Authorizes this system
Same as Transferability
Mooring System
but City had a pilot
for the BYC and NHYC.
Document.
program with the NHYC
which worked well.
Liveaboards
Permittee may live-
May be temporarily
Same as Transferability
aboard his or her
permitted on Short-
Document.
permitted mooring with
Term Rentals, too.
a Liveaboard Permit
Yacht Clubs and LICA
Clubs and LICA charge
Same as current
Same as current
• Balboa Yacht Club holds
various individuals a
practice.
practice.
permits for `72 offshore
monthly or yearly rate
moorings.
to access the moorings
• Newport Harbor Yacht
assigned to the Clubs
Club holds permits for
and LICA. Permits held
-70 offshore moorings.
by LICA, BYC, and NHYC.
• LICA = 46 onshore
permits ( -792 LF).
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTION 17.01.030 OF CHAPTER
17.01, SECTION 17.40.020 OF CHAPTER 17.40 AND
SECTION 17.60.040 OF CHAPTER 17.60 OF TITLE
17 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO MOORING PERMITS
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that.
The Management and Stewardship of Newport Harbor has been granted
under Tidelands Trust Legislation by the State of California. Vessel
moorings on the City Tidelands are intended to provide a lower -cost
alternative to boat slips in Newport Harbor and to provide boating
accessibility to a larger segment of the population. Historically, starting
from the 1930's, mooring transferability was limited under the Municipal
Code to allow an individual mooring permit holder to convey the existing
mooring hardware. and to transfer the mooring permit to another individual
only in conjunction with the sale of the vessel assigned to the mooring.
When this system was developed, demand for moorings was minimal.
Initially, an individual could request permission to install privately owned
mooring equipment and would be assigned a location and a mooring
number. Over the next thirty years when the designated mooring areas
were filled, an informal wait list was established. However, as the demand
increased over several decades, a significant value was associated with
possession of a mooring permit that was far in excess of the value of the
mooring hardware. As the value of the permit increased, the ability to
acquire a permit from the wait list decreased significantly
3. When there is great demand for moorings, a value is associated with a
mooring permit well in excess of the annual permit fees. This value may be
inappropriate in light of the California Constitution's prohibition against the
gifting of public funds or assets as set forth in Anicle XVI, Section 6 of the
state Constitution. This amendment to the mooring permit and transferability
provisions of Title 17 provides for a revised and short-term process begins to
bring the City's administration of moorings into compliance with Article XVI.
Section 6. It also identifies fees, rents and charges that provide revenue
which can -w14 assist in funding Harbor maintenance and dredging projects
and Harbor amenities.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California.
HEREBY ORDAINS as follows
c(lal W [ottnik Thm %a r ntwtury
rlt:utgr to avnkt unpBrating t'to"Itm 26
ttuuMertuatx.
SECTION 1. Section 17.01.030(A) (4) of Chapter 17.01 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby added-- to-seadamended to add Section 17.01.030(A)
as follows:
17.01.030 Definition of Terms.
A. Definitions: A.
Assigned Vessel. The term "Assigned Vessel' shall mean a vessel
lawfully registered. owned or documented to a Permittee to occupy
a designated mooring or berthing location in Newport Harbor
SECTION 2: Section 17.01.030(4) (16) of Chapter 17.01 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby added- ie�amended to add Section 17.01.0300)
(15) as follows:
J. Definitions: M.
15. Multiple Vessel Mooring System. The term "Multiple Vessel
Mooring System" shall mean a floating platform secured to a single
point mooring only which allows multiple vessels to be secured that
are shorter in overall length than the side of the platform to which
the vessels are to be moored.
SECTION 3: Section 17.01.030(8) (11) of Chapter 17.01 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby added4e4eadamended to add Section 17.01.030(0)
(1 1) as follows:
O. Definitions: S.
4. Sub - Permits.
a. Sub - Permits - Long Term The term "Long Term Sub - Permit" shall be
defined as those mooring sub - permits issued by the City for the
temporary use of a Deemed Vacant or a Noticed Vacant mooring for a
period of between one (1) month -to- twelve (12) months.
b. Sub - Permit - Short Term. The term "Short Term Sub - Permit" shall be
defined as those mooring sub - permits issued by the City for a
temporary use of a Deemed Vacant or Noticed Vacant mooring for any
I WW(9WK Ak.Mq Arfnlm(hd RrcU..• 1) 2210 Abe( FLr Mnamy IbRibiRm,.,1)1. 23 1010
Comoro[ IORH2]: Snnply ckamrp cdltn
period of time less than thirty (30) days as determined by the Harbor
Resources Manager.
SECTION 4: Section 17.40.020 of Chapter 17.40 of Newport Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows-
17.40.020 Live - Aboards Prohibited.
A. Live - aboards shall not be permitted at piers that are bay ward of
residentially zoned areas. No person shall live- aboard any vessel on an onshore
mooring. (Ord. 2008 -2 § 1 (part). 2008)
B. Live- aboards are prohibited on moorings subject to long -term mooring
sub - permits as noted in Section 17.60.040(G).
C. Live- aboards may be permitted on short term on moorings subject to short
term sub - permits according to Section 17.60.040(G).
order.)
SECTION 5: Section 17 60.040 of Chapter 17.60 of Newport Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended in its entirely to read as follows.
17.60.040 Mooring Permits.
A. Permit Required. No person shall place, erect, construct. maintain, use or tie
to a mooring in the waters of Newport Harbor over City -owned or controlled
tidelands without first having obtained a mooring permit from the Harbor
Resources Manager or having otherwise complied with this section. A mooring
permit is in the nature of license for the temporary use of a specific location
within the Newport Harbor. Any work described and authorized in the permit
must be completed within the time designated in the permit.
B Issuance of Permit — Conditions. The Harbor Resources Manager, in
furtherance of the tideland grants to the City. may issue a mooring permit or
mooring sub - permit to allow the Mooring Permittee or Mooring Sub - Permittee to
temporarily use a portion of the waters of Newport Harbor for the moonng of a
vessel.
Exceptions:
a. The Balboa Yacht Club and the Newport Harbor Yacht Club
I (AMM11f04 M1Yw111 Adnwi fbd R,,11..-II TY. NHnt hiu M,W.,WGO/umivd 11 23,101o,
(collectively, "Yacht Clubs ") currently hold permits for single
point moorings placed within certain mooring area
boundaries established by the City, except as noted in
Section 34 below. In addition, the Lido Isle Community
Association ("LICA") has permits for on -shore moorings on
Lido Isle.
the haFbGF as well- These organizations shall hold their Ga nt[ouul: ['call wm.Ix, IWAIN
respective permits under the Yacht Club, or respective m new a 31 trlm weh=law mnbtgum
organization name, for the moorings identified by Harbor
Resources as under their respective control at the time of
enactment of this ordinance. The Yacht Clubs and LICA
shall be solely responsible for managing moorings under
their control and shall be permitted to assign moorings under
their control to Yacht Club members and members of LICA,
respectively. The Yacht Clubs and LICA shall keep accurate
records of the name and address of the club members and
community association members to which each mooring has
been assigned. Mooring records shall be made available for
audit by the Harbor Resources Manager during regular
business hours upon request.
b. Mooring of a Tender. A vessel no longer than fourteen (14')
feet in overall length to serve as access to and from the
Assigned Vessel, may be secured to the Assigned Vessel or
may be secured to the offshore mooring in the absence of
the Assigned Vessel.
C. Multiple Vessel Mooring System Program. The Harbor
Resources Manager may approve multiple vessel mooring
system in the mooring areas of Newport Harbor Yacht Club
and the Balboa Yacht Club. An application for a multiple
vessel mooring system shall be submitted in writing to the
Harbor Resources Manager, who shall evaluate the
application based upon standards he shall have established.
2. Permit Requirements. Each mooring permit shall be issued to one
natural person ("Mooring Permittee ") who shall be responsible for
all activities related to the mooring permit. To the satisfaction of the
Harbor Resources Manager, the Mooring Permittee shall:
a. Identify on the permit the full legal name, current address,
current telephone number and current e-mail address, if one
exists, of the Mooring Permittee;
b. Agree to be responsible for permit fees, maintenance and
repair of mooring equipment;
I IAOA (X)VIC4 Mum q Adrw, (/ i RMI..• 1122 )!) /ha FID Mrv4ux) 1ORMIP i f- 1 11.23.10h,,
C. Grant permission to the City of Newport Beach to temporarily
assign the mooring to another vessel when it is unoccupied
through the issuance of a mooring sub - permit;
d. Agree to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach
and any other government entity with jurisdiction against any
claims or losses arising out of, or related to the use of the
mooring permit except where the claim or loss arises out of
the sole negligence and/or sole misconduct of a person
assigned the mooring as a mooring sub- permittee under
subsections G and/or H below;
e. Provide proof of liability insurance on vessel as determined
by the City's Risk Manager, and;
Provide registration or other proof of controlling possessory
right in the Assigned Vessel, all to the satisfaction of the
Harbor Resources Manager.
3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications. A mooring permit shag-may-be
held by, or transferred to, only the following persons:
a. A natural person holding title to an Assigned Vessel;
b. An executor or administrator carrying out the terms of a will
or administering a probated estate that holds title to an
Assigned Vessel, but only for the period of time prior to
distribution of the estate;
C. An inter vivos trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust
estate holding title to an Assigned Vessel so long as all
trustors are natural persons and the primary Mooring
Permittee shall be the trustee of the trust;
d. An approved transferee whose vessel and/or mooring permit
are subject to any of the terms and conditions stated in
17.60.040(E);
e. A marine contractor or marine support service provider,
holding title to an Assigned Vessel used to provide current or
ongoing harbor infrastructure and marine or fishing services
(such as maintenance and dredging) as authorized under
the provisions of a Marine Activities Permit;
),l(MJ fN)1:Ni1 .Nauvnl Adnun( I Rrtllvu• 1).22101b>f1'r11 MTIUlIl IUWq /u.•!vd 1119101nn
f Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth
education in boating and marine activities: Kerckoff Marine
Laboratories for the purpose of marine and oceanographic
research and American Legion Post 291 for the purpose of
serving veterans and their families and supplying them with
affordable access to boating and harbor activities.
The Balboa Yacht Club, Newport Harbor Yacht Club and
LICA (collectively "Yacht Clubs ") - only for those moorings
assigned by the City of Newport Beach within certain
established mooring areas or locations, prior to the
enactment of this amended ordinance. The boundaries of
these designated mooring areas may not be expanded. The
boundaries of these mooring areas are graphically depicted
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
("NOAH ") Chart Number 18754. Yacht Clubs shall be
entitled to a maximum number of moorings as can be
accommodated in the mooring fields designated in NOAA
Chart Number 18754 and at a minimum the current number
of moorings assigned to them as of the effective date of this
ordinance.
C. Plans and Specifications Required. No permit shall be issued for placing,
erecting, constructing or maintaining a mooring or buoy unless such mooring or
buoy is constructed:
In accordance with standard plans and specifications approved by
the Harbor Resources Manager and at a location approved by the
Harbor Resources Manager: or
In accordance with other plans and specifications for such mooring
or buoy which have been submitted by the applicant, showing the
construction of such proposed mooring or buoy together with the
location thereof, and which meet the requirements established in
this chapter and which have been approved by the Harbor
Resources Manager.
D. Unpaid Fees. When the permittee is in arrears for a period of ninety (90)
days or more, the Harbor Resources Manager may, at his discretion, revoke the
permit upon five (5) days written notice to the permittee by first class mail to the
address shown on the permit. 11 the mooring is not removed by the permittee
within thirty (30) days after cancellation of the permit, then it shall be deemed
abandoned and the title thereto shall vest in the City. Mooring Permittee may
apply for reimbursement for the value of the mooring equipment pursuant to
subsection M below.
LAOS MEW M(notul Adnw.(Mf Sn11u,ri1.22.10Mv Flu Mir•luul lUWR /Rn,unl i l2:f I Olon
C rvt tDRN4]: sprnlRally nklrc"
rnwtmR unra that mu IustmM m
m.mumg m the c,v a nanr. of thr
tlwoNtR pe ttM baxrl uixm Tulrlmrt,
prkntitra. _- -
Comm&* tDRHS]: To rbnwmtr
mnbigum xtwv d gat bdlv.u, uratr
rxhtWt mul to rlutumtr:u,v nnphr.mon
that thr y.,dtl Auto nw,r nut uuu.6m,
thrtr rxu.twR nwuhrr ul nxw a,, ,R". but
allow Inr thr cun�ohAauuu unn aa„UVA
mx,rn,q hrlAn
E. Transfer of Permit. No Mooring pPermittee shall transfer a permit for a
mooring or buoy granted under the provisions of this chapter, except,
degree of consanguinity: or
2. When a natural person has taken title to an Assioned Vessel already on
a moonng. the mooring will be surrendered to the City for assignment
pursuant to the Interest List under subsection M below, or that
transferee may, upon request and payment of relevant fees,
another moonng subject to availability for up to the six (6) -months. After
gx (6) months. the Harbor Resources Manaoer,Qr his or her desionee
shall direct that the vessel be moved off the mooring an( that thg
moortno be assioned throuah on the Moorino Interest List: or-
3 In cases not reflected In 1 and 2 above. a Mooring pPermit may be
transferred prior to January 1, 2021 up to two times if the Mooring
Permittee intends to sell or otherwise transfer, or has sold or
transferred, ownership of the Assigned Vessel and does not intend to
replace the Assigned Vessel with another vessel owned by Mooring
Permittee.
Procedures for Transfers: Permits shall not be transferred without the prior
written approval of the Harbor Resources Manager. PAW 18 jaRUaFy 1,
t The Harbor Resources Manager shall approve the transfer of a mooring
permit under the procedures set feOW out below:
1. The Mooring Permittee (or, if the Permittee is deceased or
incapacitated, the transferee) shall submit to the Harbor Resources
Manager:
a. A completed mooring transfer form (on the form provided by
the Harbor Resources Manager); and
b. Documentation that the proposed new Mooring Permittee
(Transferee) qualifies as a Mooring Permittee under section
B (3) above.
2. If transferee intends to purchase an Assigned Vessel but does not
have title on the Assigned Vessel owned by the Mooring Permittee
and transferor at the time of transfer, then:
I IA(M1(x)i.* W Akxvmg ArMw. aril Hr 110.- 1112.10 Pow nu Anramg WRIO /f jnv 1113.10 /nn
Comment (DRN {t: Mrwrtl up tr,uu F 1r4.
to m.du, n (h.. th, Ivjr, nl tramk -m
nuv Im nadr rrp,:vAlren n( whrn tlury
COm Rt [DRR7]: su"r vrmr 6mn at
tr:mJrt La U,.,l « q:vAlrx. ul datr. Ihr
pn.,h rrr. « nrr0nl
a. Within sixty (60) days of a transfer, transferee shall submit to
Harbor Resources Manager a copy of a California
Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard
documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the Assigned Vessel, or in the case of a shore
mooring, a photograph of the Assigned Vessel if it is not
subject to vessel registration laws, or
b. If such documentation is not received by the Harbor
Resources Manager within the sixty (60) day period, then the
mooring may be deemed vacant and may be rewted
assigned pursuant to sub - sections G{ and H below. If the
documentation is not received within an additional sixty (60)
days, the mooring shall revert back to the City for
assignment through the Interest List as set out in subsection
M below.
3. If Transferee intends to moor a vessel other than the Assigned
Vessel and does not have title to the vessel that will be moored at
the time of transfer, then:
a. Within sixty (60) days of an approved transfer the transferee
shall notify Harbor Resources Manager that the Assigned
Vessel has been removed from the mooring and before a
new vessel may be placed on the mooring shall submit to
Harbor Resources Manager a copy of a California
Department of Motor Vehicles registration or other current
registration (or in lieu thereof, U.S. Coast Guard
documentation of ownership) documenting transferee's
ownership of the new Assigned Vessel, or in the case of a
shore mooring, a photograph of the new Assigned Vessel if it
is not subject to vessel registration laws; or
b. If the documentation is not received within 60 days of a
transfer, the mooring may be deemed vacant and may be
assigned pursuant to subsection G and H below. If the
documentation is not received within an additional sixty (60)
days, the mooring shall revert back to the City for
assignment through the Interest List as set out in subsection
M below.
4. The transfer request shall be denied unless Mooring Permit fees
are paid current; required mooring inspections are current; required
maintenance and repairs are complete and there are no derelict or
lAO R M361 Morning Ad,w, (Xd R"11W 1122 Nxa tlu Mn•lurl fllNH:; k. a rt1 11 23 1010,
unauthorized vessel(s) on the mooring.
5. The Mooring Permittee and transferee shall provide a written
agreement to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach in
any dispute with a third party over transferee's right to be the
Mooring Permittee or in any dispute with a third party over the
Mooring Permittee's right to transfer the permit.
6. Transfer Approval. Upon confirmation of compliance with this
subsection, the Harbor Resources Manager must find all of the
following conditions to approve the transfer of a mooring permit:
a. The Mooring Permittee no longer owns the Assigned Vessel
or has retained ownership of the Assigned Vessel and has
permanently vacated the mooring;
b. The specific mooring location has not been previously
transferred more than one (1) time between the effective
date of this ordinance and December 31, 2020;
C. The transferee has met all the qualifications and conditions
for issuance of a permit in subsection B above.
The Harbor Resources Manager may approve a one for one
exchange of moorings between two Mooring Permittees, subject to
compliance with this subsection without any transfer fee imposed
by the City.
8. The Harbor Resources Manager may approve the changing of an
Assigned Vessel on the permit, subject to the requirements of
Section B above, without any transfer fee Imposed by the City.
WhAn
As
sh
RhAll hP dAllned !OF Me PUFP96es 91 !his GeGlIOR as the heirs a! Jaw
I IAOB WWW1 M <rrm9 AJrran (kd RYftr 11 22 In Rrst Flu Mwamy IDWlYRn d 11 L§ IW, 11
G. City's Authority to Assign Moorings through Use of Sub - Permits. With the
exception of the Balboa Yacht Club, the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, and
the Lido Isle Community Association's designated moorings, Mooring
Permittee may not rent, assign, or transfer the use of the mooring to any
other person. With the exception of moorings issued to Mooring
Permittees described in Section B (3) (e), City shall have the authority to
assign vacant moorings to sub- pennittees pursuant to the following
provisions:
which:
Deemed Vacant Moorings. City may assign Deemed Vacant
Moorings through the issuance of long term sub - permits at its own
discretion for any period of time up to one (1) year. Long term sub -
permits may be renewed upon availability. The Mooring Permittee
may reclaim its mooring upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to
City of its intent to return the Assigned Vessel to the mooring.
A "Deemed Vacant Mooring" shall be defined as a mooring upon
a. An Assigned Vessel has not been attached for thirty (30)
consecutive days or more. or
b. A vessel, other than an Assigned Vessel, has been attached
for thirty (30) days or more: or
C. Required documentation for an Assigned Vessel has not
been provided for a transfer request pursuant to Section E
above.
2. Noticed Vacant Moorings: City may assign Noticed Vacant
Moorings at its own discretion through the issuance of a mooring
sub - permit for any period of time, either long or short term, up to
the reoccupation date on Mooring Permittee's written notice, or the
twenty -four (24) hour written notice per subsection (b) below. If the
mooring continues to be vacant for thirty (30) days past the
reoccupation date indicated on Mooring Permittee's notice, and
there is no further written notice from Mooring Permittee, the
mooring shall become a Deemed Vacant Mooring.
a. Mooring Permittee may provide written notice to City of its
intent to vacate its mooring for fifteen (15) days or more.
These moorings shall be "Noticed Vacant Moorings."
Written notice shall include the date the Mooring Permittee
intends to vacate his/her mooring, and the date he /she
intends to reoccupy the mooring with the Assigned Vessel.
LAOS (4)1361 Mauvgl Ad,,w, (b i Rrtfluu• )1.22.10 M,f nu .N,x mu) lUWI,mR, a rl 11 L(. 10 1nn
b. If Mooring Permittee provides notice, the Mooring Permittee
may reclaim the assigned mooring on the reoccupation date
indicated in his/her written notice, or, if the Mooring
Permittee r returns prior to or after the reoccupation date,
upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the City.
H. Procedures for Mooring Sub - Permit Issuance. Any natural person wishing
to use a mooring pursuant to the issuance of a sub - permit must enter into
a written mooring sub- permit agreement with the Harbor Resources
Department that includes the following:
1. A written representation of the current gross vessel weight which
shall be satisfactory to the Harbor Resources Manager.
2. An agreement to be responsible for any damage to mooring
equipment, to defend and indemnify the City of Newport Beach and
the Mooring Permittee against any claims or losses arising out of,
or related to the mooring rental, and that requires the mooring sub -
permittee to provide proof of liability and marine pollution insurance,
registration or other proof of ownership, and an equipment damage
deposit, all to the satisfaction of the Harbor Resources Manager.
3. The repair of any damage to the mooring equipment shall be paid
by the mooring sub - permittee.
4. Mooring sub - permittees shall provide approved mooring lines which
shall be removed at the end of the rental period.
5. A mooring sub - permit agreement is renewable based on
availability. Upon return of the Assigned Vessel to the mooring, the
Harbor Resources Department will attempt to reassign the sub -
permittee to another mooring. Mooring sub - permittees have no right
of renewal or substitute moorings upon return of the Assigned
Vessel, or upon termination of a mooring sub - permit agreement for
any reason. Mooring sub- permittees accept an indefinite term at
their own risk.
6. The sub - permit fee will be based on a rate established by the
Newport Beach City Council and delineated in the Master Fee
Schedule Resolution.
Live - aboards are not permitted on moorings subject to a-long term
mooring sub - permits. Live- aboards may be temporarily permitted
on moorings subject to short-term sub - permits pending vessel
inspection and subsequent re- inspection per each short-tern sub-
I IAf.NW130 M,..vvl MLrvn(kd Wr11vv- 11 22 . 10h lPo, Mn•1vn1 lnW11nn,� 111.'31 1c11
permit renewal.
8. Short term sub - permit renewals are not guaranteed and are
subject to availability.
9. Mooring sub - permits that are available for thirty (30) days or more
shall be first offered to persons on the Interest List, as defined
below, as a priority. Non - acceptance of such mooring assignments
shall not cause such persons to lose their position on the Interest
List.
10. Mooring sub - permits that are available for less than a thirty (30) day
period shall be offered to the public on a first -come, first -serve
basis.
11. A mooring may be loaned free of charge by the Mooring Pennitlee
to a vessel other than the Assigned Vessel for no more than thirty
(30) consecutive days provided that: 1) The Mooring Pennittee
provides the Harbor Resources Manager with written notice
identifying the vessel that will use the mooring; 2) The Mooring
Perm ttee has not loaned the mooring for more than sixty (60) days
in the twelve (12) month period that immediately precedes the
commencement of the current mooring loan; and 3) The vessel
owner requesting a loan has not previously been the recipient of
loans for more than ninety (90) days in the previous twelve (12)
months.
Mooring Interest List
The Mooring Interest List ( "Interest List') is the list or lists of natural
persons as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance, who wish
to obtain a mooring permit as permits revert to the City or who wish
to be assigned a mooring on a long term basis from the City
through the issuance of a mooring permit or mooring sub - permit.
On and after the effective date of this ordinance, the Interest List(s)
shall be maintained for natural persons interested in securing a
mooring permit, or being temporarily assigned the use of a Deemed
Vacant or a Noticed Vacant Mooring.
2. Any person wishing to be added to the Interest List must do so by
completing a written application and paying a fee to be established
by resolution of the City Council. Any person may be removed from
the Interest List by producing a written signed notice to the Harbor
Resources Manager at any time, requesting to be removed from
the Interest List.
11AIPlW1.Pq Ah +rvrp Advunlbd Nnlluv 11 tl lnfinllL�Mrrlvy (ONIQ /Rz+•_.1 L.19. ttUOn
3. Each even numbered calendar year, the City shall send one notice
to all persons on the Interest List requesting confirmation of
continued interest and/or updating of contact information. If there is
no response to the thirty (30) day notice along with payment of the
administrative fee referenced in 1 (4) below, then the person shall
be removed from the Interest List.
Each person on the Interest List is responsible to keep the City
informed of any changes to his or her mailing address or other
contact information and must pay a fee for the administrative costs
to maintain the Interest List to be established by resolution of the
City Council. Nonpayment of such fee shall cause the person to be
removed from the Interest List.
5. Persons on the Interest List will be notified of revoked mooring
permit or mooring sub - permit or, surrendered or abandoned
moorings and given the opportunity to receive a mooring permit or
sub - permit.
J. Mooring Permit Transfer Charge, The City shall charge the Mooring
Permittee for the right to transfer a mooring permit under section E above
in an amount equal to fifty percent (50 °0) of the annual permit fee as
determined by the Master Fee Schedule. A mooring permit transfer
charge shall not be required if:
The transfer is from the Mooring Permittee to the same Mooring
Permittee as trustor of an inter vivos trust. living trust or other
similar estate planning tool: or
2. The transfer is made under Section 17.60.040 -JEj -172- and j8j.
Surrendered Mooring Equipment. If the Mooring Permittee sells transfers
or otherwise no longer owns the Assigned Vessel and does not intend to
apply for, or does not receive approval to transfer the Permit to another,
the Permittee may provide written notice to the Harbor Resources
Department of his or her intent to surrender the mooring permit, otherwise
the provisions of Section F regarding a vacant mooring shall apply.
Once a mooring permit is surrendered. the Mooring permittee shall
remove the Assigned Vessel and /or the mooring equipment thirty (30)
days after written notice of surrender of the Permit, or, upon failure to
I (A(W W1:I4if M1fr+rvi4 Adrrwl O 1 RMI.- 1122If) ib,l Flu Slrrmw 7JW W IF-r�d 11:
WIMINrR [DR11191: nrktM ax rnrtmatlrtnrt
wth puWy to tl c Iuo-rrxr ISM :md wrnrld
hr rnr&11Wv rl thnc w:a nn rntc mtrm.trtl
Ill nunrttrp pcnwt
remove the mooring equipment, title shall vest in the City and the City
shall compensate Mooring Permittee the fair value for the mooring
equipment, less fees owed, as provided in subsection M below.
L.- Revocation ererof Permit.
1. Grounds for Revocation. A Mooring Permit or sub - permit may be
revoked upon any of the following grounds set forth in Section
17.70.020 or for any of the following:
a. The moored vessel, or the mooring equipment has been
determined to violate the applicable Mooring Regulations in
Section 17.25.020, and the Mooring Permittee or Sub -
permittee has not made the necessary corrections or repairs
within the time required:
C. The mooring Permittee has failed or refused to allow an
inspection of the vessel to determine if it is seaworthy and
operable, a public nuisance or in compliance with applicable
marine sanitation device requirements:
d. Living aboard a vessel assigned to a mooring without a live -
aboard permit unless otherwise noted in Section
17.60.040(G).
2. Notice and Hearing. In the event the Harbor Resources Manager
determines there are grounds to revoke a permit issued pursuant to
this chapter, the Harbor Resources Manager shall proceed in the
manner described by Section 17.70.020.
3. Upon revocation, it shall be the duty of the Mooring Permittee to
immediately remove the mooring equipment and any moored
vessel. If not removed within thirty (30) days of revocation of the
Permit, the mooring equipment shall vest in the City and may be
auctioned by the City to another person or may be removed by the
Harbor Resources Manager and the cost of mooring equipment
removal shall be paid by the Mooring Permittee. Any moored
vessel or equipment not removed within thirty (30) days may be
impounded by the City and disposed of in the manner provided by
law. City incurred costs of removal of mooring equipment or any
vessel moored thereto may be charged against the Permittee and
collected in any court of competent jurisdiction or recovered by the
City from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or mooring equipment.
4. During any revocation proceeding under this Section L, if the
I (AOSM1361 Mnwv,y Adnun fbd RMibu- 112J 1011,11
Co nt (uRH10): .su,r dfr &.1i a ih
.a K A„,,
mooring is unoccupied, it may be temporarily assigned as a
mooring for guest vessels by the Harbor Resources Manager.
M. Moorings Reverting Back To City: Should a mooring revert back to the
City for any reason, whether through abandonment, surrender, failure to provide
documents pursuant to subsection E. above, or for any other reason, the
following shall apply:
1. The Mooring Permittee shall be entitled to recover all of Mooring
Permittee's mooring equipment within thirty (30) days of reversion.
2. If Mooring Permittee does not recovery his or her mooring equipment,
Mooring Permittee shall be entitled to payment from the City of the fair
value of the mooring equipment as depreciated by use in an amount to
be determined by the Harbor Resources Manager and as set in the
City's Master Fee Resolution.
3. The mooring shall be assigned to an individual form the Interest list
pursuant to subsection I above.
4. No mooring that reverts to the City for assignment off of the Interest
List, or by any other appropriate procedure, shall have any right to a
later assignment by a Mooring Permittee whatsoever.
SECTIONS: If any section, subsection. sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision
shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this
ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and
phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
SECTION 7: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the day of 2010.
and adopted on the _ day of 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS
I ✓/t(NW1:114 Mr.wly Adrrvi Ort1 R,,11..- 1) Mu M�rtmy IUWI1 /Nn'cxd l 12i 111 1 i-m
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS
APPROVED AS TO FORM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
David R Hunt. City Attorney
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
W> (X)1367 H<.,ruul Adnwi Urd knlWu• 11.'11.1
F
G
P
EPA',, �yv
a �If '_•
�. � M M A ` ,,_ � 1 •��. �•: �` - ! ,� �� r `..�J Vii..„
J
Q
Q
U
11
J
Q
Z
Q
U
n
z
W �1
W
O BAY FRWBAY NT ALLEY
m
R O g'
w
d
m
t
+e r
n(
i.Za' a
7
i1 4 ti `