The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15 - Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Blank, Paul To: Dept - City Clerk Subject: FW: I support ocean water initiative and mooring field reconfiguration Date: May 17, 2023 3:33:47 PM Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -----Original Message ----- From: Jeff Cyr <cyr6@cox.net> Sent: May 16, 2023 7:36 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Harbor Commission <HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: I support ocean water initiative and mooring field reconfiguration [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, My name is Jeff Cyr and I'm a long time 25 year plus resident of the Harbor View aka Port Streets neighborhood, a boat owner and user, an avid surfer and paddle border that uses a Newport Harbor for exercise and entertainment almost daily if not weekly. Me, my wife and adult children fully support the ocean water initiative, and mooring field reconfiguration and hope you'll support on our behalf as well Sincerely Jeff Cyr 25+ yr NB Harbor View resident and active NB Harbor user Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Blank, Paul To: Dent - City Clerk Subject: FW: Mooring field open water initiative Date: May 17, 2023 3:33:20 PM Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -----Original Message ----- From: Holly Morgan <mrsblackdawg@aol.com> Sent: May 16, 2023 8:11 PM To: Harbor Commission <HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring field open water initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have been blessed to have my boat in Newport Harbor for 10 years. I am in a great location but do view moorings that appear unorganized and haphazard. I believe this initiative would be a win -win situation for both the boat owners and the harbor. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Holly Morgan, boat owner Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Blank, Paul To: DDe t - City Clerk Subject: FW: Mooring Field Plan. Date: May 17, 2023 3:37:19 PM Attachments: image001.a_na Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Don Russell <drussell@operongroup.com> Sent: May 16, 2023 7:06 PM To: Harbor Commission <HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Dennis Durgan <ddurgan@att.net> Subject: Mooring Field Plan. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I wish to extend my support for the Program to improve and facilitate the use of Newport Harbor. Clearly the Bay is the nucleus of the city, such that it is imperative that it be continuously monitored for efficient use and constant non -ending maintenance. Thank you for your work in this regard. Donald Russell. Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Blank, Paul To: Dept - City Clerk Subject: FW: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration Date: May 17, 2023 3:38:12 PM Attachments: imaae001.onna Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Tom Linovitz <tlinovitz@gmail.com> Sent: May 16, 2023 6:04 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Harbor Commission <HarborCommission@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Open Water Initiative and Mooring Field Reconfiguration [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Member/Harbor Commission, I hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing to offer my unwavering support for the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. As a resident and passionate advocate for our beautiful harbor, I firmly believe that this initiative is of utmost importance to ensure the safety and enjoyment of all harbor users. Having closely followed the discussions surrounding the proposed mooring field reconfiguration, I am well aware of the numerous benefits it will bring to our beloved Newport Harbor. The initiative's key objectives, including improved navigation, optimized space utilization, increased mooring availability, wider fairways, enhanced spacing between boats, and the preservation of stunning shoreline views, align perfectly with the interests and desires of both residents and visitors. The current state of the mooring field necessitates a proactive approach to address the challenges it presents. The overcrowded conditions, limited maneuverability, and potential safety hazards are issues that cannot be ignored. By supporting the Mooring Field Open Water Initiative, we have a unique opportunity to create a safer and more enjoyable harbor experience for everyone. I am truly grateful for the diligent efforts of the Harbor Commission and their dedication to the long- term health and vitality of Newport Harbor. It is reassuring to see a governing body taking proactive measures to enhance the safety and beauty of our community's greatest asset. As an active member of the community, I have witnessed firsthand the passion and concern shared by numerous individuals who value the harbor's importance to our city's identity and economic well- being. I speak not only for myself but for the many residents and harbor enthusiasts who wholeheartedly support this initiative. In conclusion, I respectfully request that you consider the overwhelming support from residents and stakeholders, like myself, when deliberating on the Newport Beach Harbor Commission's Mooring Field Open Water Initiative. By prioritizing the safety and enjoyment of all harbor users, we can safeguard the long-term viability and appeal of our cherished Newport Harbor. Thank you for your tireless dedication to serving our community. I trust that you will carefully consider the sentiments expressed in this letter and make decisions that reflect the best interests of our city and its residents. With sincere gratitude, Tom Linovitz Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Cheryl <cherylPgbfenterprises.com> Sent: May 18, 2023 3:21 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncilPnewportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council Members We strongly urge council members to pay careful attention to information submitted by the Newport Mooring Association about the proposed reconfiguration of the mooring fields. They have gathered expert and professional input about the specific conditions that exist in Newport Harbor that make the proposed configuration less safe than the existing configuration. We have had our sailboat on a mooring for over 20 years and know how the tide and wind conditions affect maneuvering boats on and off the mooring. We believe that the proposed reconfiguration will make mooring our boat both more difficult and more dangerous. We are also concerned about proposed changes to the harbor code that will allow the Harbor Commission to force us to move our boat and mooring at our expense with ad hoc mooring layout decisions. Thank you for hearing our concerns . Keith and Cheryl Garrison 311 Island Avenue Mooring A-241 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: cwtillman@cox.net <cwtillman@cox.net> Sent: May 19, 2023 9:42 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Mail@YourNewportMooringAssocation.org Subject: Letter Concerning Mooring Field and Harbor Code Proposed Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport City Council Members, Please find the attached letter addressing your consideration of proposed mooring field and harbor code changes. Best regards, Craig Tillman Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 May 19, 2023 Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach, California VIA EMAIL RE: Consideration of Pilot Test and Implementation of Double-Row/Tandem Mooring Plan and Associated Harbor Code Changes Dear City Council Members, This letter is to urge you to reject the recommendations of the Harbor Commission with respect to mooring filed reconfiguration to double-row/tandem moorings and associated harbor code changes. This plan effectively densifies moorings which will create many negative impacts to the mooring permittees, residents that live near the harbor and harbor users in general. Please consider that, (1) Many permittees have already voiced significant concerns about this plan. It will diminish navigation safety, especially when conditions are not ideal (e.g., higher winds and/or tides. This will raise the risk of collision during both operations as well as for moored vessels. Indeed, in just the last few months, during adverse periods, we have seen the impacts of vessels colliding and sinking when their proximity from other boats is not maintained. Such incidences will only be exacerbated in the changes recommended by the Harbor Commission. Even after several meetings with mooring permittees, no significant changes have been made to recognize this very real safety problem in the Harbor Commission's proposal. (2) Changes recommended to Harbor Code modify longstanding terms of mooring use and create significant uncertainly in the location of individual moorings. For many vessels the mooring location is key to safe operation — indeed a change in location could make it impossible to use some vessels without creating unsafe conditions for many. Please let mooring permittees stay on the mooring selected when they obtained the permit. (3) The Board's focus and interest in increasing free navigation space seems to focus solely on vessels that are not human powered. The current configuration of the mooring fields provides a natural buffer for the operation of human powered vessels like paddleboards, kayaks as well as small sailing vessels. The current mooring fields provide physical protection from wayward engine -powered vessel operators and their wakes. The same can be said for marine life, like dolphins which are often spotted inside mooring fields as they seek refuge from busy boat traffic corridors. Also, the present mooring system discourages the loitering of vessels (e.g., using virtual anchoring or station -keeping systems) that cause more pollution and more noise for harbor residents. Densifying mooring fields will have detrimental effects on human - powered and small sail vessels using the harbor as well as increase to opportunity for loitering vessels that will negatively affect that harbor atmosphere. (4) This proposal seeks to increase mooring capacity by an additional 100 vessels, but does not consider how this intensification of harbor usage will increase demands in other harbor facilities. Specifically, accessing moorings will become more problematic as public docks, dingy storage areas and private marinas have no additional capacity to accommodate additional permittees that wish access to their vessel — this is already the case for the existing mooring population. Where will all those additional users park their cars? Will this not have a negative effect on homeowners in the harbor area? Homes closest to the water have limited parking as it is. As you may know this is a non -trivial expense for mooring users now and should be accounted for in any plan or proposal. It's like building a new high -density housing subdivision without making provisions for parking or better roads for access. The existing recommendations fails to consider the negative impacts on parking, the enjoyment of properties near the harbor, and other harbor facilities after implementation. (5) The current mooring configuration promotes the ability to sail up to a mooring, without use of power, thereby encouraging greener activities in the harbor. The proposal would largely eliminate this opportunity for greener vessel operations. (6) As a frequent user of both harbors, it's clear that Newport Beach Harbor and San Diego's America's Cup harbor are not comparable from a wind and tide current standpoint. The recommendation as presented makes a false comparison of the two harbors and indeed, misleadingly implies that they are the same. The tidal flow alone is an order of magnitude more intense in Newport Beach Harbor — that creates very challenging conditions for boats maneuvering on and off moorings. Densifying the mooring fields will increase the likelihood of accidents and potential legal liability for the City. (7) It may be a matter of personal taste, but the aesthetics in San Diego's harbor can be likened to that of a big parking lot, highly compact and decidedly ugly. That's not seen from aerial photos, but certainly from ground level, Newport Beach Harbor's current aesthetic is more pleasing by allowing for more space between boats and thus providing a relaxed backdrop for harbor users. Looking at San Diego's ground -level aesthetic — it is no different from a parking lot in a large shopping center. We understand that from an ariel view, neat rows of boats may seem appealing, but from the water, we know it would essentially create an industrial look. (8) Closer arrangement of vessels will amplify problems of seals hauling out on boats, essentially allowing these marine mammals more opportunity to congregate closer to each other. The proposal by the Harbor Commission does not even evaluate this. Mooring permitees already have significant responsibility for dealing with seals and birds — please don't increase this by densifying mooring fields. As a responsible and active member of the Newport Beach Harbor community, I respectively ask the City Council to reject the ill-advised recommendations of the Harbor Commission as it pertains to double- row/tandem mooring and changes to the Harbor Code. Sincerely, Craig Tillman Mooring Permitee and Balboa Yacht Club Member (949) 388-5700 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: George Hylkema <seeseadragon@yahoo.com> Sent: May 19, 2023 12:26 PM To: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: George Hylkema <seeseadragon@yahoo.com> Subject: Opposition Letter to HC Plan for double boat mooring plan [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Manager. I met you for the first time yesterday when meeting with Council woman Lauren Kleinman. I am a board member of the Newport Beach Mooring Association and I am sending this letter with my concerns with the HC plan for mooring changes and Title 17 changes to be voted on in the Tuesday City Council meeting. I have had my boat on a mooring for 30 years. I would appreciate your consideration for these concerns. Respectfully, George Hylkema 949 929 9024 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 In Opposition to Double Boat Mooring Plan The proposal by the Harbor Commission to convert the moorings in Newport Harbor to a double boat configuration has been the subject of a year long debate between the HC, the mooring permit holders and the organization representing them, the Newport Mooring Association. The function of the HC is to advise the City Council on matters related to changes to the Harbor. Normally, a proposed change would be designed by competent coastal engineering company and presented for consideration to the HC. The HC would evaluate this proposal and make recommendations to the City Council. The current double boat plan was developed by one member of the HC with no competent coastal engineering review, except by the volunteer work of the NMA. Mr Beer chose not to seriously consider the views of the NMA and, instead, publicly attacked it. The proposed double boat mooring plan which is based on the America's Cup Harbor layout in San Diego works fine there because of its pond like protected location with almost no tidal currents. In Newport Bay, however there is a considerable tidal current 4 times a day. Winds are also an issue in Newport Harbor. To the NMA this plan increases the danger of collision for the paired boats. The staff report on the double boat mooring pilot test has been released at a cost of $410k. There is, however, no available description of what is to be tested nor the procedure for doing so. As a retired aerospace engineer of 27 years, I know that a competent engineer would never request funds for a test without specification of the proposed test, questions to be answered and the expected results. Further, while a competent coastal engineering company was consulted and provided a report, the material studied was limited to structural loads on the proposed anchoring system. The operational workability and safety of the double boat mooring system was not addressed. It is this aspect of the proposal that has not received any competent coastal engineering review. The plan was reviewed by the NMA board and mooring permit holders. Consider these individuals as having particular competence on the issue of mooring use and safety in Newport Harbor. A survey of permit holders views on the plan was conducted by the NMA and the result was that 148 opposed the plan and 6 supported the plan. Of the 148 opposed, 26 held maritime licenses such as "Captain". The NMA believes that safety IS the critical issue in this proposed plan. Fortunately there is a no -cost way to determine the safety issue. The City owns 2 moorings in the C field, moorings C-32 and C-42, that could be tethered together to represent the common anchor for a simulation of the double boat mooring arrangement. A stationary boat first be used on the east mooring and then on the west mooring. Then with different tidal currents and a test setup for many trials of approaching and leaving the mooring with different wind and tides. With the stationary boat being a large inflatable to minimize collision damage in case of a failed approach or departure with current and wind conditions there should be little risk in the test. This would require no construction of double boat moorings and no changes in Title 17 to accommodate the test. The test question: Is having boats 22 feet apart safer than having them 45 feet apart? Since the current mooring layout has functioned successfully for more than 100 years I believe we should slow down and thoughtfully reconsider the double boat mooring plan. George Hylkema 5/19/2023 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 WILLIAM J. KENNEY, JR., CLS 824 HARBOR ISLAND DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (949) 675-7038 May 15, 2023 Honorable Mayor Noah Blom Newport Beach City Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Re: Proposed Mooring Field Open Water Initiative Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: VIA EMAIL & REGULAR MAIL Next Tuesday you will have before you a recommendation by the Harbor Commission to take the first steps in reducing the size, improving the safety, and enhancing the appearance of the offshore mooring fields. With your approval, the Harbor Commission's recommendations will also serve to open up the waters of Newport Harbor for the benefit of all of its users. Specifically, the recommendations will better define the mooring field rows which will make navigating them safer and more uniform by placing like size boats in the same rows instead of the current random placement. They will widen the fairways and make them uniform which will provide for easier and safer navigation for the mooring permittees, make them safer for other users of the harbor such as kayakers, paddleboarders, sabots and other small sailing craft, and Duffy's, and enhance their appearance. They will provide for the addition of new moorings that the City can provide the those boat owners who can't afford to pay +$1,000.00 per foot just to have the right to obtain a mooring permit. And they will significantly enhance the appearance of the mooring fields from the land areas around the bay, including the bayfront homes, beaches and parks. As Councilmembers, this decision is easy. There is no downside. As a 50 year resident of Newport Beach, an avid yachtsman and individual that spends most of my off hours on the bay I strongly recommend that you adopt the Harbor Commission's recommendation and approve the mooring field reconfigurations as proposed. Thanks for your service to our great City and for your vote in favor of the Harbor Commission's recommendations. Regards, William J. Kenney, J'r`:, CLS , �7Y" C.3 �i Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: John Fradkin <john.fradkin@gmail.com> Sent: May 19, 2023 7:34 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Realignment Plan / Open Water Initiative [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Newport Beach Council Members, I am opposed to the Harbor Commission's Open Water Initiative and Mooring Realignment Plan as currently proposed. I am not opposed to making some changes to the offshore double mooring fields in general. I think that the rows could be better aligned visually than they currently are, especially in the H and J mooring fields, and I think it does make sense to have all moorings in a row be basically the same size or close to the same size. Those are good achievable goals that I am fully supportive of. However the double row layout, as proposed by the Harbor Commission, is not appropriate for Newport Harbor because of the wind and tidal current conditions native to the harbor. If the double row system is implemented it will cause a very significant increase in the degree of difficulty in the use of those fields and therefore will cause a safety issue as there will be more collisions and more property damage than is the case with the present system. I am sure of this. I am so sure of this that I don't feel the proposed system even needs to be tested. The Newport Mooring Association recently conducted a poll of its membership on whether the members liked the new plan or not. The results of the poll were quite emphatic as the poll results were 148 to 6 against the new layout. The poll contained the opinions of 26 licensed Captains, and within this subset, the results were 26-0 against it. The Newport Mooring Association also solicited the opinion of an expert who has been admitted as an expert in numerous State and Federal courts as an expert on ship handling and navigation -- the Captain James Haley letter dated November 6, 2022 is attached to this email. There are two major problems with the proposed layout. The first problem is that paired boats in this layout are positioned 20 to 25 feet apart from one another by design. In the present single row configuration boats are positioned on average 50 to 60 feet apart in this dimension. I personally measured the distance between buoys with a tape measure in several normal looking rows in H and J fields and the average was 43 feet. Although the newly proposed layout increases spacing between boats in the other three directions, the large 50 percent or more decrease in spacing in the single most important dimension is hugely problematic and the Harbor Commission does not seem to comprehend this despite repeated educational efforts by the Newport Mooring Association. Because of the shape of Newport Harbor, long and skinny with only one entrance, there is a strong tidal current present at regular intervals, and the harbor is more like a river than a lake during these occurrences. There is a one knot current that occurs often and stays strong for roughly 3 hours at a time. A one knot current does not sound like much and is barely noticed when your vessel is moving at normal speeds. However when you are going ultra slow or even stopped, which is the case when you are getting on or off a mooring, a one knot current is very significant and will greatly influence your actions. When the current is going in the same direction as the wind, this is when mooring a vessel is probably the trickiest. By far the most important spacing is the amount of space between your vessel and the paired vessel that is downwind and downcurrent from your vessel. Time is of the essence when getting on or off a mooring and there is a big difference between having 12 seconds or having 30 seconds to complete a maneuver. In short, it's important to have adequate spacing in all directions and not just in three of them. It's common for vessel operators to have to abort a failed mooring attempt and escape routes in all directions are important. The second major problem is that the proposed layout effectively makes paired moorings either upwind moorings or downwind moorings. The downwind moorings will be much harder to use. See attached James Haley letter paragraphs 3 and 4. If the new plan is implemented, how will the City decide which mooring permittees get the less favorable downwind moorings ? The Harbor Commission believes that the new proposed plan will result in a better looking harbor. That is a very subjective assertation but I don't agree. I have attached a photo of what the boats moored in a double row layout in America's Cup Harbor look like. Please take a look at it and make up your own mind. With regards to the proposed test, why not use City owned moorings and City owned vessels to perform the test ? This could easily be done and there would be so much less contention. If the test was to be done in this way, no mooring permittee private property would have to be moved involuntarily and be placed in a "crash test dummy" situation. Please consider this option. I think that the correct minimal number of moorings for a proper test would be 12 so that you could have two "rows" of six boats and have middle boats in each row. This would allow a visual evaluation of all the pertinent dimensions. Certainly this could be done at far less cost than the $410,000 that has been allocated in the proposed recommendation. The test also needs to be better described. What constitutes success or failure ? Who will be doing the testing ? Will a logbook be kept ? The new proposal will create large fairways through the mooring fields. Is this a good thing ? The Harbor Commission seems to think so. I don't think it is and many other harbor users agree with me. The current configuration affords nice protected parklike environments within the harbor that are very safe for human powered activities like paddleboarding, kayaking, float tube fishing, and swimming. These activities will be less safe in large fairways due to more boat traffic. In addition the mooring fields in Newport Beach are classified by the US Coast Guard as Special Anchorages. The most important thing about this designation is that it allows vessels to be moored there without being lit at night. Contained in the very definition of Special Anchorages is the wording: The areas so designated shall be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. See attachment. If large fairways are cut through these Special Anchorages, is that even legal ? It's perhaps a gray area as to what constitutes a fairway, but I'm not sure all Coast Guard personnel would approve of the current proposal to cut fairways through the Special Anchorages. I believe that fairways are meant to go around Special Anchorages and not cut them up. The Harbor Commission has at many times stated in their public discussions that the mooring fields are "navigable waters" and I believe this to be incorrect per the US Coast Guard definition of the Special Anchorages in Newport Harbor. I would encourage all members of the City Council to consider amending what is being proposed on Tuesday evening into something that is better, safer, and more well thought out than what is currently being proposed. Respectfully, John Fradkin Mooring Permittee 714-915-8047 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 To: City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission From: Capt. James L. Haley 79 Dapplegray Lane Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca. 90274 November 5, 2022 Rear Commissioners. I have been asked by the Newport Mooring Association to give my expert opinion on the proposals contained in the published "Solution for Improved Safety and Utilization of Space and Adding New Moorings". I have held a US Coast Guard License as Master Mariner since 1982, including First Class Pilotage, Unlimited Tonnage in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and employed as a pilot in the Port of Long Beach for the past 32 years. I have been admitted as an expert in numerous State and Federal courts as an expert in ship handling and navigation. I have also been a recreational sail and power boat owner for over fifty years and a frequent user of moorings in Southern California. It is my opinion that any proposal that involves moving mooring rows closer together and forcing any vessels to approach or depart a mooring in a down wind fashion (relative to the prevailing winds) will create much greater risk of collision and injury and a less safe usage of the mooring arrangement. It would be almost impossible to overstate the negative impacts of configuring moorings that are not approached as nearly bow into the prevailing winds as practical. The increased difficulty of approaching or departing any mooring or dock in a downwind direction would certainly increase risk of collision, allision, damage to boats and injury to boaters. All authoritative books on seamanship or boat handling are in emphatic agreement on this simple point. The vast majority of sail vessels and many power boats are single engined, and have very limited steering or maneuverability when moving astern. Departing moorings downwind would be as likely as approaches to result in boat collisions, allisions, damage and injuries. The America's Cup harbor arrangement that has been offered as an example is not comparable to Newport for the simple reason that it is shielded from wind by the topography of Point Lorna and protected from tidal currents by virtue of being land locked on three sides. Newport, by contrast is surrounded by low land masses that do little to protect the mooring fields from prevailing winds, and tidal currents flow unimpeded through the moorings as well. The current proposal creates a less safe situation by moving alternate mooring rows within 20 feet of each other. Less space affords less reaction time and decreases space to maneuver to avoid collisions or allisions when boats inevitably experience a failed mooring attempt such as when the wind or current are greater than anticipated. Page 84 of the October 12"' presentation indicates the distance between all mooring rows range from 41 to 55 feet with an average of 53ft in the "C' mooring field. In the new mooring plan, on page 85, it indicates alternate mooring rows will be moved closer and within 20 feet of each other. In my opinion, moving the mooring rows within 20 feet decreases the ability to safely maneuver, especially in the event of strong winds, a failed mooring attempt or mechanical failure. 10 Any changes to the existing mooring arrangement that has served the boating community quite well for decades should give the most serious consideration to the input of the current permittees. Their experience is the best source of know#edge about what works and what will create problems for them and their fellow boaters. Please feel free to call me with any questions at (929) 713-6277 Sincerely, Capt. James Maley 11 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 LII > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) > Title 33 - Navigation and Navigable Waters > CHAPTER I - COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY > SUBCHAPTER I - ANCHORAGES > PART 109 - GENERAL > § 109.10 Special anchorage areas. 33 CFR § 109.10 - Special anchorage areas. CFR Table of Popular Names § 109.10 Special anchorage areas. An Act of Congress of April 22, 1940, provides for the designation of special anchorage areas wherein vessels not more than sixty-five feet in length, when at anchor, will not be required to carry or exhibit anchorage lights. Such designation is to be made after investigation, by rule, regulation, or order, the procedure for which will be similar to that followed for anchorage grounds under section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 4, 1915, as referred to in § 109.05. The areas so designated should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. The authority to designate special anchorage areas was transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security by section 902(j) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241, 120 Stat 516), and delegated to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard in Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Commandant redelegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds to each Coast Guard District Commander as provided in 33 CFR 1.05-1(e)(1)(i). [USCG-2007-27887, 72 FIR 45902, Aug. 16, 2007] I& CFR Toolbox Law about... Articles from Wex Table of Popular Names Parallel Table of Authorities Accessibility About LII Contact us Advertise here Help Terms of use Privacy MM -00-Mv- �. Imp _ •� w L 0 r = y ■ _ z �. i lot 0 o p May 23, 1U13 Agenda Item No. 15 Z T Show desktop . i t [= li L•. 'l{l •II! t. •.•.• :f 1 �• Z .. - - Ifl - •if�t`f. t.v ._f..l • if Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Dick Andrews <captaindicky101@gmail.com> Sent: May 21, 2023 6:23 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To my council members Thank you for your time I'm writing you about the morning changes. I know you have probably heard a lot about this but I wanted to give you my opinion as well. I do not like the proposed changes that is the simple version it is going to make getting my boat on and off the morning a little more difficult and a lot more hazardous to my neighbors. I am a liverboard in Newport Harbor and I take my boat out as often as I can at least once every other week to do pump out and fill my water tanks as needed I have 46 ft gaffery catch which weighs 52,000 lb that I single hand on a regular basis I am perfectly capable of doing this even though I am a partially disabled veteran. However with the new morning proposal that would put a boat off my Stern or bowel only about 20 ft away give or take a few my boat does not stop quickly I usually put it in neutral before I even get inside the morning field and Coast to my morning and sometimes I still need to put it in reverse just to get on my morning with a boat 20 ft in front of me if I should happen to misjudge the slightest or have a current or a small Breeze I could hit the boat either in front of me or behind me I know the city will not be responsible for this Collision. Nor would they want to be. I also do not like you messing with my neighborhood I understand that the mornings are in a little bit of this array I think it would be better to spend taxpayers money on resetting mornings to make them safer and requiring spreader lines. How would you like it if someone went into your neighborhood and said I don't like the way it looks we're going to rearrange it all and you don't really have much choice. that is the impression I get from the harbor Commission and I don't believe they've actually notified all the morning holders of the changes they are proposing either by email or a letter I don't believe I have ever received anything from the city or the harbor Commission that informs me of this. most of the information that I get about morning field changes and rules is through an outside source which actually did a survey on people to see if they wanted to change and I don't remember the exact numbers but most of them did not appreciate the new changes proposed. Thank you for your time Captain Dicky morning J 210 714 393 5125 captaindicky101(@gmail.com Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 To: City of Newport Beach City Council From: Capt. James L. Haley 79 Dapplegray Lane Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca. 90274 May 20th, 2023 Subject: Written Comment on May 23rd Agenda item #15 (Harbor Commission Objective 2.3) Dear Mayor Blom and Honorable Council Members: I have been asked by the Newport Mooring Association to give my expert opinion on the proposals contained in the staff report for the pilot test of the proposed double mooring field layout and pilot test, and I have reviewed the report of oceanographer Dr. Bart Chadwick and the report of Noble Consultants. I have held a US Coast Guard License as Master Mariner since 1982, including First Class Pilotage, Unlimited Tonnage in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors and been employed as a pilot in the Port of Long Beach for 32 years. I have been admitted and given testimony as an expert in numerous State and Federal courts as an expert in ship handling and navigation. I have also been a recreational sail and power boat owner for over fifty years and a frequent user of moorings in Southern California. It is my opinion that any proposal that involves moving mooring rows and vessels closer together, thus reducing the existing safe maneuvering space in front or behind adjacent vessels will create a much greater risk of collision and injury and a less safe usage of the mooring arrangement. It would be almost impossible to overstate the negative impacts of configuring moorings that have less maneuvering room or are approached in a downwind direction. The increased difficulty of approaching or departing any mooring or dock in a downwind direction would certainly increase risk of collision, allision, damage to boats and injury to boaters. All authoritative books on seamanship or boat handling are in emphatic agreement on this simple point. Furthermore, the majority of sail vessels and many power boats are single engined and have very limited steering or maneuverability when approaching or departing a mooring at slow speeds. Unpredictable winds and strong currents often force mariners to abort approaches or correct for unanticipated effects of wind and current. The existing single row mooring configuration provides ample space to abort approaches or make course corrections. Reducing the amount of space between mooring rows as in the double row proposal will significantly increase the risk of boating accidents. The America's Cup Harbor arrangement that has been offered as an example is not comparable to Newport for two key and very important reasons. First, America's Cup Harbor has almost no tidal current compared to the significant tidal currents in Newport. Secondly, America's Cup Harbor is shielded from wind by the topography of Point Loma and protected from tidal currents by virtue of being land locked on three sides. Newport, by contrast, is surrounded by low land masses that do little to protect the mooring fields from prevailing winds. The contours of Newport Harbor, the large volume of water that must diurnally ebb and flood through the single entrance results in strong tidal currents across the mooring fields. The combination of wind and tidal current in Newport Harbor often creates very challenging boat handling conditions, particularly at the slow speeds necessary to maneuver on and off moorings. The Noble Consultants report I reviewed specifically states (page 2): "Disclaimer - The mooring layout and anchor spacing for this project was not conceived or endorsed by Noble Consultants, Inc. nor it's staff Engineers." Of even greater concern is that the report is completely silent on the dynamic forces of wind, current or their impact on maneuvering to and from moorings. Presumably seamanship and boat handling considerations are outside the scope of Noble's engineers' expertise, but they are of primary concern to mooring permittees and must not be glossed over or ignored. The current proposal creates a significantly less safe maneuvering challenge by moving alternate mooring rows within 20 feet of each other. Less space affords less reaction time and decreases space to maneuver to avoid collisions or allisions when boats inevitably experience a failed mooring attempt or unanticipated wind or current effect whether approaching or departing. A recent harbor commission presentation indicates the distance between all mooring rows range from 41 to 65 feet with an average of 53ft in the "C" mooring field. In the new mooring plan, it indicates alternate mooring rows will be moved closer and within 20 feet of each other. In my opinion, moving the mooring rows within 20 feet drastically increases the existing maneuvering challenges, especially in the event of strong winds, a failed mooring approach, departure or mechanical failure. Boats will be forced to decide whether to approach or depart a mooring in a downwind fashion (relative to the prevailing winds) which is always contrary to good seamanship, or to pass extremely close to another boat at minimum speed. Both options introduce greater risk than the existing arrangement. Any changes to the existing mooring arrangements that have served the boating community quite well for decades should give serious consideration to the input of the current permittees. Their experience is the best source of knowledge about what works and what will create problems for them and their fellow boaters. Please feel free to call me with any questions at (928) 713-6277 Sincerely, Capt. James Haley Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 5/22/2023 Newport Beach City Council Council Members I am a Newport Beach Resident writing to express my concern about the proposed double mooring configuration in Newport Harbor. As a 32 Year mooring leaseholder, I believe that this realignment will make getting on and off the boat mooring more difficult and more dangerous. Having been to the Harbor commission meetings and listened to the proposals by the commission, it is obvious that the proposal by the Newport Beach Harbor Commission has been a one-way conversation. Even with the stakeholders speaking at each meeting, the proposal by the committee refused to ask questions or respond to suggestions. In all the meetings I did not hear any mooring holders stand up and speak with a positive response to The Harbor Commissions Title 17 offerings. The commission wanting to spend $410,000.00 on a realignment of the C section mooring is a waste of our taxpayers' money. Newport City would be better served if the Harbor Commission rented or leased the many existing moorings that now lay idle in the harbor. It is time for the Harbor commission members to wake up and listen to the mooring holders, boaters, and the experts that have donated their time and energy to clarify the misconceptions proposed by the Commission. I specifically purchased my mooring because of its location being on the front row and close to available city parking. There is no way the Harbor Commission can come up with an equitable solution for current lease holders, by moving boat owners to a different location in the mooring fields as proposed. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and instead focus on other ways to improve safety in the harbor. Sincerely, Kenneth Vandeveer 15 Edgewood Dr. Newport Beach, Ca 92660 Mooring J-099 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Sawyer Jones <sawyerjones@gmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 11:24 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Concerns with the proposed harbor code changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Sawyer Jones, I want to voice my concerns for the proposed double -row mooring configuration. First, you are making proposals based on zero information. Proposing signigicant changes without even a test seems to be ignorant of the implications to mooring users. Moorings are already significantly more difficult to use than a stationary dock to get a boat on and off of. And to propose tightening the space between vessels does not consider how our weather, currents, and the manuverability of each individual boat can affect a boat when getting it onto and off of the mooring. To make such a proposal without any real time data from your local area is completely ignorant. Second, this proposal is again attacking the transferability of the moorings with some of the language used in this proposal is not being straight forward with the actual word TRANSFERABILITY. This proposal mentions vague changes to the transferability and seems to be another attempt to get rid of the ability of mooring permit holders to transfer their mooring that they paid for at a fair market value and seems to suggest that the transferability will only be allowed once. There is no need to have any sort of transerability code changes in this proposal. Third, your own contract engineer is not endorsing the proposed mooring field layout. How does that sound? Your own paid for contractor wont endorse what you are trying to do. Again, ignorant of the facts that taxpayers have already paid for and you wont learn from. Your own contractor wont even endorse the ideas you've come up with. Fourth, Who is supposed to pay for this $410,000 program to test out your botched ideas? The taxpayers? Seems extremely expensive to test out a program that your contractor wont even endorse. The City should not be making taxpayers foot the bill to test out their ignorant ideas. Sawyer Jones, concerned mooring permit holder. Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Eric Young <ericyoung@lemonlawprotector.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 12:01 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Stapleton, Joe <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Grant, Robyn <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Objection to Proposed Title 17 Changes and Double -Row Mooring System [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: I write to express sincere objection to the proposed changes to Title 17 and the proposed double - row mooring system. I am a resident of Newport Beach, business owner in Newport Beach, and permittee for mooring C-62. I have navigated various vessels throughout Newport Harbor since 1994. The overwhelming majority of mooring permit holders object to the Harbor Commission's proposed changes to Title 17 and object to the proposed dangerous double -row mooring system. The proposed changes to Title 17 would revoke downstream transferability and drastically reduce the value of current mooring permits. The proposed language only allows the transfer of permits that were issued prior to the date of the new proposed Ordinance. Currently, a new permit is issued to the transferee at the time of any transfer. Consequently, a transferee would be unable to sell/transfer the new permit. The value of current mooring permits would be drastically reduced because any potential buyer/transferee would merely obtain a non-transferrable permit. Based on the foregoing, the proposed change to section 17.60.40 E. should be rejected. If the City Council is inclined to create new moorings that are non-transferrable, any such new moorings should be created with a different name such as "License" or other designation that clearly differentiates new non-transferrable moorings/licenses from the current transferrable mooring permits. The proposed language in section 17.60.040 B. 2. I. should also be rejected because it allows forced relocation of moorings. (Location, Location, Location) In 2017, after saving up enough money, I spent a significant sum to purchase the permit for mooring C-62 based on its location relative to shore access. I had back surgery in 2005 and I cannot row a boat for any significant distance, nor can I carry an outboard motor to affix to a rowboat to reach a more distant mooring. I am sincerely concerned that the proposed changes would result in a forced relocation of my 45ft mooring and would end my years of boating in Newport Harbor. I sincerely ask that the moorings remain in place so that I may continue shopping for my 45ft dream boat to assign to mooring C-62 in its current location. The new proposed double -row mooring system is dangerous and should be rejected: • The new system will make it significantly more difficult to navigate and 50% of mooring permittees will have to access their mooring in a downwind and less safe fashion. • The only example the Harbor Commission has provided where a bow -to -bow mooring system is utilized is America's Cup Harbor which is tucked in behind Shelter Island in San Diego Harbor. America's Cup Harbor is perhaps the most protected marina in Southern California as it is almost fully encircled by land and lies within protected San Diego Harbor. It is a very protected "harbor within a harbor'. It is obvious to an experienced mariner that the conditions in America's Cup Harbor do not compare to the prevailing wind and currents we experience in Newport Harbor rendering it a useless comparison. I have discussed the proposed changes with residents of Newport Beach and other mooring permittees. There is a consensus of strong opposition to the proposed changes to Title 17 and the proposed double -row mooring system. Respectfully submitted. Best regards, G. Eric Young, Esq. YOUNG & YOUNG APC 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ericyoung(@lemonlawprotector.com Phone: (833) 536-6600; Fax: (844) 572-7150 http://www.lemonlawprotector.com[ Residence: 922 W. Balboa Blvd., Apt. A Newport Beach, CA 92661 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this email is confidential and/or privileged and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email and any attachment from your system; you are prohibited from any disclosure or copying of the contents of this message or any attachments. Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Brian H Ouzounian <brian.oci@sbcglobal.net> Sent: May 22, 2023 12:16 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and city council members: This is sent to you to plead NOT to vote in favor of Mooring Configuration changes in Newport Harbor. I own mooring A171 (for 48 years) and the proposed changes seriously impair the safety and usability of the mooring operations. Additionally, the proposal will greatly increase liability to my shore side property directly south of the A Mooring field based on my personal observations for the past 48years, season sailor, and property owner. In closing, I have to say that our Harbor commission has become very cavalier in this and other recommendations to the city council of which I am disappointed. Best Regards, Brian H. Ouzounian Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Dan Wesley <srs565@aol.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 12:23 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council Members, Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard on the very important matter of the mooring reconfigurations. I am vehemently opposed to the proposed changes for two reasons: the integrity of the project and the possible liability. While the member of the Harbor Commission who is spearheading this project has certainly gained name recognition, I cannot imagine how he would be an expert in this field. This proposed project is huge; possibly affecting thousands of boat owners. Wouldn't it make sense that such a proposal should be spearheaded by a person who is familiar and renowned in this field? Also, as a boat owner in the C field I do not appreciate being used as a guinea pig. Secondly, the liability for all boat owners, and possible the city, is at stake here as well. There are several issues with this new configuration that concern me. As a boat owner of over 40 years, I can attest to witnessing several near misses and I can tell you this new mooring idea will just make it far worse. Again, the Harbor Commissioner who seems so interested in putting this forward is not an elected official, but you are and it is my fervent hope you will listen to the will of the people and find other ways to " make a mark" that do not include the opposition of so many people. I have seen this council find solutions to difficult problems and I have faith you will do it once again. As a side note, the opposition you have heard from is only a small amount as so many do not even realize this is in the works. Thank you, Dan Wesley Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Pat and Bud C <patandbud@hotmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 1:00 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: moorings vote to reconfigure [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To City Council, The city is to vote on this Wednesday, May 24th at 5:30. I just don't understand why they want to spend so much tax money to do this. They say the views for homeowners will be better. If you have a view of a 50 foot boat now how will your view be better by putting two 50 foot boats together? Your view will be worse! They want to add boats, not take away to the same field area. The footprint for the moorings stays the same so does NOT open up the main fairways. Putting one boat 20 feet in front of the other does not add safety! They say lining them up will look neater. Looks like just moving a hand -full could do that. Boats are different sizes in all directions and will not line up perfectly. There are plenty of moorings not in use that the city can rent at NO COST to the city. The mooring holder pays for all the maintenance (about $1400 every 2 years also monthly taxes and fees). The city rents a 50' out for approximately $2000 per -month. Why add these tax costs to add city moorings when so many are available. The trial for area "C" is predicted to cost $410,000 to the taxpayers. C field has approximately 55 moorings, resetting the harbor's 700 moorings is well in the millions! They plan to add, at first, 4 new moorings but can add up to 108 with the future plan. They plan to lottery them off, not auction which would have helped cover the costs. The new moorings will go by different rules just to add more confusion! Plus, with 108 new moorings there is no talk of more harbor parking and dock space. I do not see the benefits out weighing the cost. Just our thoughts, Thank You, P and B Coomans Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: tomiovenitti@gmail.com <tomiovenitti@gmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 1:10 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Harbor Master <harbormaster@newportbeachca.gov>; Harbor Feedback<Harborfeedback@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Dilemma 5-23-23 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council, Mr. Paul Blank, Harbor Commission, Personal Opening Comment: In the pursuit of solutions facing the City of Newport Beach and those associated with the mooring fields configuration, I write this email to give my reasonable view of the circumstances. In the past several months my letters have been sent to inject some thoughts that may or may not be reviewed but nevertheless could answer many questions and concerns. Some I have asked to be published through Mr. Blank, some not. The question is; will the configuration provide the safe docking and release of the moorings presently in our harbor at all times given current weather, tidal and wind conditions? I am not sure, which is why we assume the test is being considered in C Fields at a cost of $410,000. Yet the actual concerns are not being discussed to answer the questions in detail. Its just seemingly being talk over but not actually being addressed evident by the repeated barrage of redlined meeting minutes. I believe if the questions are directly answered then a better more practical solution would be possible with the Mooring Association and the City to insure the safest alignment can be approached. I made the suggestions in past letters that the distance between the two ball system be properly evaluated to insure larger tonnage would have ample room and time to adjust in a critical situation therefore giving more space for error in difficulty or emergency. To be fair, although there is a lot of negative controversy, the mooring fields could be reconfigured to provide the Harbor with its newly organized ideas and reduced size to accommodate its goals. But I have to agree with the report from Brad Chadwick on the differences in San Diego vs Newport Harbor. Therefore, the distance between larger vessels, heavier tonnage, displacement, wind, drift and size could affect the safe transition in all the weather and tidal conditions. However, I also believe that we must prepare and suggests solutions not problems. Solutions & Ideas: 1) Provide mooring permittees with a proposed layout showing each moorings position within the proposed field. 2) Place larger vessels in a more risk reduced alignment and distances between balls to give ample time for adjustments. 3) consider a dock float addition to each ball that minimizes the time and effort to attach by using the float dock method presently being used on the NHYC small sail boat multiple tie up system. 4) review the space between larger vessels bow attachments that would offset the wind, drift and tidal flow. i.e. 2Oft vessels have 20 ft between bows, 30-40ft vessels have 40 ft between bow attachments, etc. This solves the issues and at minimum gives more space and time to adjust in a safe but manageable tidal weather concern. 5) Catalina has a system that works and so does every other harbor on the island. Why? Because the weighted chain and line keep most of the mooring balls inline. Solution, place heavier chain and anchoring to each ball. Increase the size of the mooring balls to offset tidal drift and adverse pressure pulling and drift of the bottom chain. With this simple adjustment and cost, the moorings would look better, be aligned better, and be accessible without much change. The fields could be compacted and meet the requirement of reducing the field sizes by simple methods. Controversy: I can see where the permittees are not in favor of change. The reason is fear. Fear of where are we going to be placed, fear of how will that affect my access and removal, fear of everything that has not been clearly outlined, fear of losing perceived equity, transferability, fear of added fees and so on. So, again, how do we overcome fear? The best way is to do nothing which is what the NMA would prefer. Given that is not the ultimate goal of the City of Newport Beach/Harbor Commission, what can we do to overcome fear? Lets be practical and leverage on the side of safety. I ask you all, to be more practical in the solution, look at all the fearful comments, outline ways to overcome the comparisons of a totally different harbor condition and find a solution that fits everyone. Shoving the plan down the peoples throat isn't a winning solution. Closing Statement: In closing I believe the mooring system has merit. I see the way it could look and work. I am not opposed to the change. But, I am opposed to unsafe, irresponsible methods of insuring approvals without the total combined effort of all parties concerns. The mooring fields are a sore sight. Mostly from boats that could sink at any moment. Its disgusting and more moorings are out of line creating the passage issues which is the reason for my solutions. Most have no visual sand line and are in disrepair. I have given my overview with suggestions to resolve the fear and City's goals. What does the Harbor Commission do next? Find a compromise that works! Sincerely, Tom Iovenitti Mooring H210 60Ft Vessel; Bada Bing! Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Rieff, Kim To: man, Eric Subject: FW: Mooring Proposal Changes Date: May 22, 2023 2:45:18 PM -----Original Message ----- From: Basil Witt <bgwitt@msn.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 2:45 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My Mooring is C 46 a 40 ft designated 2 buoy location on the north side of the C field. I have owned my Westsail 32 since 1975 and have been moored on C 46 since 4/89 My sailboat has a full keel, draft of 5 feet and weighs approximately 16000 lbs. propulsion is a single blade prop powered by a 50 hp 4 cyl diesel and cutter rigged sails. When I leave the mooring I leave a mast buoy attached to my mooring lines creating a spreader line for pickup upon return. The challenge or Multiple challenges! 1. Tide other than neutral 2. Wind No protection Try securing your stern line on a fast incoming tide before the westerly combined with the tide and your full keel has taken your bow out 45 Degrees. You drop everything and start over And you better have three capable people on board There is no room for error Currently! You have chosen the wrong site in the harbor for your experiment. The tides, wind and constantly changing conditions in the C site are not conducive to your experiment. The idea of rows of different mooring length seem to have been already followed but no doubt could use some adjustment or fine tuning. Sincerely, Basil Witt C46 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: W Cap Havekorst <havekorst@alumni.usc.edu> Sent: May 22, 2023 2:54 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mooring Proposal Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Council Members; Objection to Mooring Configurations for Safety, Life and Death, and Fire. The proposal for the double row configuration can cause serious safety, fire and weather issues. As a retired Deputy Sheriff Sergeant and Fully trained retired Harbor Patrol Deputy the proposal can and I believe cause loss of limb and/or death. With the ocean currents in Newport Harbor, the congestion in the traffic flow (especially during the Holidays, July 4th, and Renowned Christmas Boat Parade) this double row proposal only works in calm waters like those in the America's Cup Marina in San Diego. I fully oppose this configuration as it does now allow for enough room with the currents in Newport Harbor to Fight Boat Fires, Property Dock and Tie up to a mooring safely and is NOT NECESSARY. In addition as a Harbor Patrol the double row makes it almost impossible to have safe rescues, fire control, and traffic congestion. The City Council taking this up without Federal Approval, NOAA Approval, Environmental Assessment Report, and Approval from all agencies is without merit and should be denied. For over 100 years the current plan and all of its merits and permits have worked well. This seems like a waste of spending dollars (when we are just trying to recover from the Pandemic) and a Money Grab for City Revenue. I write this transmittal with a heavy heart as I have seen many boating accidents, fires, and deaths in this harbor and don't want to see the City Council of Newport Beach have to burden those serious human life and safety trauma when they could happen. Sincerely and respectfully, Walter Havekorst Li t� I� Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Jim Palmer <jimpal mer8088@gmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 2:59 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Please Vote NO on Resolution 2023-32 Mooring Reconfiguration and Title 17 Change [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Hon. Mayor Noah Blom and Members of the City Council, Attached please find a letter expressing my opposition to this resolution. Thank you, Jim Palmer Mooring Permit D10 949-433-6512 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 To the Hon. Mayor Noah Blom and Members of the City Council RE: Please vote NO against Resolution 2023-32 on May 23, 2023 I support the proposed mooring configuration tests to Improve Navigation, Safety, and Optimizing Space within the Mooring Fields. However, I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Title 17 as written in Resolution 2023-32 and respectively urge your NO vote against passage. The extensive research and visual presentation by the Harbor Commission provides a compelling solution with potential for impressive results. Testing should proceed as proposed. However, the visual presentation also distracts from the much more impactful changes in the Resolution to Title 17. These changes are nothing short of radical and, once passed, will immediately eliminate 75+ years of mooring permit transfer policies and practices. The Harbor Commission, and others, consistently over the past 11 months have told or presented the practically identical phrase: "Policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged" (1). Yet, in spite of these repeated assertions, adoption of Resolution 2023-32 will fundamentally transform Title 17 (2). Section 17.60.040 of Title 17 submitted in the council's agenda packet as Attachment D, page 3 of 11, topic 3d modifies and limits a qualified permit holder transferee to that of an immediate family member only. With passage of this Resolution, existing permit holders will no longer be able to freely transfer permits between otherwise qualified parties. This message is not to support or defend the merits of the decades long legacy policy and practice of a private party mooring permit transfer marketplace facilitated by the city (formally the county) where significant amounts of monies are exchanged (currently about $1,000 per foot or $40,000 per average mooring permit and totaling over $2.3 Million in 2022 (3)). I'm here to point out that changes to such transfers are the most significant element of Resolution 2023-32 and yet, we permit holders are told "policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged". The Title 17 changes are poorly written and open for interpretation (as evidenced by the strong opposition and coordinated support referenced in the council's agenda packet Attachments F and J, respectively). The Resolution's promoters also focus on the mooring configuration presentation, minimizing attention on the actual ordinance changes while repeatedly asserting the policy remains "unchanged". Even the Staff Report prepared for this Resolution ignores mention of the multi -million - dollar permit transfer private marketplace. Combining these actions creates the appearance that the mooring configurations are being used as a red herring to distract from the changes to legacy permit transfer policies without public discussion of the merits of imploding the private permit transfer marketplace. If appearance is reality, this is an intentional mass gaslighting of all stakeholders by the Resolution promoters. Thank you, Jim Palmer Mooring Permit D10 949-433-6512 (1). Attachment E — Presentation on page 15-69, bullet point #6 Policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged (2). Attachment D - 17.60.040 Mooring Permits Item 3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications on page 3 of 11, Topic 3d (3). Mooring Transfer Log 2022 https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/71229/638084319562630000 (1). Attachment E — Presentation on page 15-69, bullet point #6 Policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged Title 17 Changes to e Sections 17.25.020 and 17.60.040 4.P Fn+ 1 Summary • Accommodation for all prior mooring extension requests up to five feet that were received before November 1, 2022 • Creating an opportunity for future extensions through a mooring exchange program where practicable • Creating an option to allow for double mooring rows with optional shared anchor systems • Allow mooring permittees to use a proper length floating spreader line attaching bow to stern mooring buoys and requiring the spreader line be connected to both mooring buoys when the boat is off mooring • Future new mooring permits issued will be non-transferrable • Policy related to transferability for existing mooring permittees remains unchanged • General clarifications to existing policy r5ss (2). Attachment D - 17.60.040 Mooring Permits Item 3. Permittee/Transferee Qualifications on page 3 of 11, Topic 3 P, anckr insert dye tablets to determine whether said devices are discharging overboard in acoordanae with applicable law..: and 1. Awee that if the pennnittee's naxdmurn mooring length is shorter than the established length of its ffmring row by five feet or more then the pem ittee is subiect to rebcatiion within the same mooring field fflrthe purpose of mcormrodating rrooring extension requests_ The Hand J fields shal be considered as one field for the Purpose of rebcntiais. The oDolm of relocation, indudinQ the moving of mooring equipment. shall be borne by the rnooring permittee who requested the mooring length ed6ension_ aamp)e: Perrnr tee A has a rrw iraa kmth oF35; a vessel LOA of30', and is in a 35' rDw. Permtee B has a nxxy rna benalt of 30'. a ve_gsai LOA 0F3i; and is rn a 35'row. Permiffee O has a n amino iernth of 36. a ve sef LOA t 30, arxf is On a 40'row_ Ckily Permidee 8 is scrbmetto reloe-Olian- 3_ Permitteeffraroferee ualifi itians. A mooring pem-A may be held orhr by natural persons unless the mooring Permit is transferable. in which cave it may be held by, or transfer to, only the folloW n4-peFsera�. a_ A natural person(s) heldiRg t;-10 -n ry ra&B@l- a b_ An executor or administrator carrying oust the tem-s of a will oradministering a probed estate that holds a maaring pern t, but ontyr for the period of time prior to distribution of the estate; C. An intervivca trust, family trust, or other similar type of trust estate holding a mooring permit, so long as all tri stors are natural persons and the primary mooring perrnittee shall be the trustee of the trust; ;Imnfediate family, which shall mean the mooring perrittee's spouse and heirs at law to the second degree of consanguinity, e_ A marine carrtrwkw, or marine support service provider, holding a mooring permit used to provide current or ongoing hadx r inftustructure and marine or fishi ng services {such as maintenance ordredging): f_ Balboa Island Yacht Club for the purposes of youth education in bwt.ing and marine activities; Kerckhu fP Marine Laboratories for the purpose of marine and oceanographic research; and American Le*n Post 291 for the purpose of serving veterans and their fami lies- and supplying them vwth affordable access to boating and harbor activities; or similar marine educational entities: or g_ The Balboa Yacht Club, N awpxt Harbor Yacht Club � collectiively 'yacht dubs") and the Lida Isle Community Association —only forthc--e moorings assigned by the City within certain established mooring areas or locations, prior to January 13, 21011. These designated moon ng areas may not be expanded. The boundaries of all mooring areas in Newport Harbor are graphicafy depicted by National Oceanagraphi c and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart Number 18754. Yacht clubs shad I be entitled to a m Amum number of nxxrirw�s identified in NOAA art Nun-ber 16754 that are located within the yacht cluUs estabished mooring fields and at a minimum the current number of nxx>nng : awned to them as of January 13, 2011. NIEIWIC 17.60.04-D strlkeout f543 (3). Mooring Transfer Log 2022 i ■ ■ 1.6. J�� yry N� 21 lat $20,000.0'J 1.16.2022 J -113 45' S40,000.0'J 1.19.2022 H-54 50' unknown 1.24.2022 B-41 35' $35,000.♦0 1.26.2022 5-8 18' $25,000.00 2.7.2022 A-43 45' $0.00 AU ED 2N L: FERMI 11 EE 2.7.2022 LN-14 18' $100,000.00 2.7.2022 A-051 50' $55,000.♦30 2.7.2022 A-75 50' $50,om.m 2.14.2022 N-78 18' $25,♦ i)0.00 2.16.2022 LS-11 18' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 2.22.2022 A-213 45' $ FAMILY TRANSFER 2.23.2022 BYC-130 50' $50,000.00 2.28.2022 P-91 18' 528,000.00 3.1.2022 W-20 18' S11,000.00 3.1.2022 J-513 30' 529,ODD. 00 3.2.2022 J-111 45' $5{]0.00 3.3.2022 A-224 35' $28,000.00 3.8.2022 K-2 50' $55,000.00 3.8.2822 N-5 18' $24,000.♦30 3.15.2022 J,S] 40' $40,000.00 3.16.2022 5-57 18' $20,♦ i)D.00 3.16.2022 S-58 18' �20,000.00 3.22.2022 D-49 40 $0.00 [-AMILY TRANSFER 3.22.2022 N-14 18' $0.00 [-AMILY TRANSFER 3.29.2022 N -36 18' $0.0C} 1- AM I LY T RA NS F ER 3,29,2022 N -56 18' $O.OU N-AMILYTRAN FER 3.30.2022 E-23 18' $am FAMILY TRANSFER 4.4.2022 N}17 48' $auu I AMI LY TRAN SFER 4.4.2022 N-77 18' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 4.5.2022 A-296 40' $42,JJJ.JJ 4.5.2022 H-412 40' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 4.12.2022 J-413 50' $70,000.00 4.13.2022 A-232 45' $O.00 NAME CHANGE 4.21.2022 S-157 18' $0.00 FAMILYTRANSFER 4.25.2022 K-21 65' $0.00 ADDED 2N-P.PERMITTEE 4.25.2022 E-1A 18' $32,000.00 4.26.2022 C-33 75' $50,000.00 5.2.2022 W-2 18' $4,000.00 5.3.2022 B-101 60' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 5.3.2022 5-108 18' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 5.9.2022 H-75 50' $47,500.00 5.16.2022 D-31 40' $45,000.00 5.16.2022 5-89 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 5.16.2022 5-42 18' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 5.18.2022 S-119 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 5.19.2022 A-305 55' $50,000.00 5.19.2022 N-78 18' $25,000.00 5.20.2022 J-89 40' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 5.31.2022 N-70 18' $0.00 FAMILYTRANSFER 6.1.2022 H-39 50' $55,000.00 6.1.2022 A-62 40' $2,500.00 6.7.2022 D-10 40' $45,000.00 6.10.2022 E-5 18' $25,000.00 6.10.2022 A-273 50' $55,000.00 6.13.2022 A-61 45' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 6.13.2022 A-236 65' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 6.16.2022 J-414 50' $0.00 FAMILYTRANSFER 6.18.2022 W-65 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 6.22.2022 B-182 40' $40,000.00 6.22.2023 N-33 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 6.23.2022 P-88 18' $27,000.00 6.28.2022 J-33 45' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 7.5.2022 S-55 18' $20,000.00 7.12.2022 H-26 45' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 7.13.2022 J-1101 55' $5,000.00 7.13.2022 J-1102 50' $0.00 7.14.2022 S-118 18' $27,500.00 7.14.2022 J-98 70' $80,000.00 7.18.2022 BYC-126 60' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 7.25.2022 J-76 40' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 7.25.2022 J-24 40' $35,000.00 7.26.2022 J-82 30' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 8.4.2022 P-61 18' $27,500.00 8.9.2022 B-92 35' $35,000.00 8.11.2022 J-103 45' $25,000.00 8.11.2022 N-98 18' $22,500.00 8.15.2022 J-611 40' $30,000.00 8.15.2022 H-613 40' $36,000.00 8.15.2022 C-24 60' $60,000.00 8.18.2022 B-121 55' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 8.22.2022 A-222 45' $53,000.00 8.22.2022 A-304 35' $35,000.00 8.23.2022 H-65 40' $0.00 8.23.2022 W-59 18' $2,389.00 8.29.2022 N-34 18' $30,000.00 8.29.2022 H-36 40' $40,000.00 8.31.2022 A-227 45' $1,000.00 9.6.2022 P-88 18' $27,500.00 9.17.2022 N-25 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 9.16.2022 J-412 45' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 9.16.2022 P-79 18' $27,500.00 9.16.2022 S-127 18' $25,000.00 9.16.2022 C-55 50' $40,000.00 9.16.2022 S-85 18' $25,000.00 9.26.2022 W-15 18' $2,000.00 9.29.2022 S-99 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 10.3.2022 B-72 45' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 10.3.2022 S-116A 18' $0.00 FAMILY TRANSFER 10.11.2022 N-112 18' $27,000.00 10.17.2022 N-53 18' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 10.17.2022 P-83 18' $40,000.00 10.27.2022 LN-6 18' $45,000.00 10.31.2022 S-42 18' $20,000.00 11.8.2022 N-62 18' $0.00 FAMILYTRANSFER 11.8.2022 H-62 35' $31,000.00 11.8.2022 B-12 50' $47,000.00 11.15.2022 N-8 18' $0.00 FAMILYTRANSFER 11.16.2022 A-123 50' $45,000.00 11.17.2022 B-41 35' $35,000.00 11.21.2022 N-93 18' $0.00 FAMI LY TRANSFER 11.21.2022 S-22 18' $25,000.00 12.6.2022 C-71 50' $40,000.00 12.6.2022 A-305 55' $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE 12.12.2022 N-55 18' $0.00 FAMILYTRANNFER 12.20.2022 D-56 30' $0.00 12.20.2022 A-61 45' 1 $0.00 ADDED 2ND PERMITTEE *This log contains all transfers done this Calendar year. Note: A 50 Price Paid in the above mentioned could be Family Transfers. Updated 12.31.2022 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Brian Bohan <bbohan@gmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 3:01 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE MOORING FIELD LAYOUT [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members We have had this mooring in our family since 1988 with the late David M Stone. For safety reasons, please do not make the proposed change. Sincerely Brian Bohan Brian Bohan Rancho Coastal Direct 760-802-4648 Fax 760-436-5847 email BrianPRanchoCoastal.com Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: dale@newportwestproperties.com <dale@ newportwestproperties.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 4:54 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding the New Mooring Proposal [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council Members: I am a mooring holder in Newport Harbor, and have been for many years. I have reviewed the proposed changes to the mooring system used in Newport Harbor and am very concerned by the proposal. There are a number of items that are problematic. The first deals with the proposed change in the way vessels are moored. While it appears the purpose is to move moored boats closer together, potentially permitting an increase in moorings and more open water area, I believe doing so will expose the City of Newport Beach to a large financial liability. As you may know, Newport Harbor has fairly strong tidal currents. Additionally, Newport Harbor is also subject to periodic strong wind gusts, sometimes over 50 mph. Depending on the design of the boat, strong winds and tidal currents will cause one boat to swing on their mooring much more than another, even though both are the same length. The proposed mooring revision places boats much closer together, and even though they would be grouped by length, will likely lead to extensive property damage as boats crash and grind against each other in heavy weather, since with varying windages and different hull shapes, they will not all move back and forth the same amount in response to wind gusts or water pressure. This property damage is something the City could very well be liable for, as it would be caused by poor mooring design, and in a bad storm could involve hundreds of boats and result in many millions of dollars in property damage. The fact that Noble Consultants, the City's Contract Engineer, felt the need to attach the disclaimer "The mooring layout and anchor spacing for this project was not conceived or endorsed by Noble Consultants, Inc. nor its staff Engineers" to the helix anchor report, dated 9/20/22, should raise eyebrows and concern on the City Council. Another worry is the possibility a mooring holder could be required to relocate to a mooring elsewhere in the harbor. This has the potential to be highly detrimental to the boat owner's ability to use and enjoy the boat. Before acquiring a mooring, most boat owners go to great lengths to make sure they have a reliable place to park nearby, and a convenient place to launch a dingy in order to travel to and from their moored boat. They may have a friend or relative with a boat dock near their mooring, or have otherwise figured out how to deal with those issues. Without those elements in place, it simply isn't practical to have a boat on a mooring. If you are forced to relocate to another part of the harbor, accessibility suddenly becomes an unknown and most likely a major problem. Also, a number of terms and definitions are vague and unclear, particularly regarding established row lengths, transferability of mooring permits, and the definition of a "new" permit. In my view, no action should be taken at this time. If the City wants to conduct a test of the proposed mooring system, it should be on City -owned moorings and be designed to examine boat movement in heavy weather, ease of getting on and off a mooring, mooring lane maneuverability, and other factors that would allow for a honest comparison of the proposed system and the mooring system in place in Newport Harbor for many years. I hope we can all agree the goal is to have a mooring system in Newport Harbor that is safe and accessible, and contributes to the enjoyment of Newport Harbor by boaters and non -boaters alike. Thanks! — Dale Falasco 243 Ocean View Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: kathryn777 <kathryn777@aol.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 5:02 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Moorings [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Very simply: please "grandfather" in mooring permitteds to the same locations. They deserve at least that much consideration. Ann Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 From: Blank, Paul To: DDe t - City Clerk Subject: FW: Ordinance No. 2023-8 and Resolution No. 2023-32: Recommendations Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests. Date: May 23, 2023 8:48:36 AM Attachments: image001.png Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Terry Trombatore <terry.trombatore@gmail.com> Sent: May 22, 2023 11:18 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Ordinance No. 2023-8 and Resolution No. 2023-32: Recommendations Resulting frorr Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am opposed to the suggested Ordinance No. 2023-8 and Resolution No. 2023-32: Recommendations Resulting from Harbor Commission Objective 2.3 to Improve Navigation Safety, Allow for Additional Moorings Within the Fields and Mooring Size Exchange Requests. What first jumps out to me in the title statement from the City Harbormaster, Mr. Paul Blank, is to improve navigation safety. Question: Do we have statistics on the number of boating accidents or incidents that have occurred over the past twenty years with the current configuration of all the mooring fields in Newport Harbor, of boats entering or leaving their moorings? Do we have data to support that current fairways and channels are unsafe? Does the harbor patrol or the harbormaster have this important information? It sounds to me that the Harbor Commission is claiming a false narrative of the current mooring fields to be unsafe. Where is the data to support this narrative and the complete overhauling of the moorings? The second thing that occurs to me in the title statement is "allow for additional moorings within the fields". Is this the true purpose of the reconfiguration of the mooring fields to increase the number of moorings and thus revenue for the City of Newport? Within the body of the recommendations made by the City Harbormaster, Mr. Paul Blank, he mentions that the cost to change the "C" mooring field would $410,000. In an e-mail from the Newport Mooring Associate (NMA), it was mentioned that the City of Newport owns two moorings in the "C" field; mooring C32 and C42. It was suggested that why doesn't the CIty of Newport just use these two moorings to test the reconfigured double anchor system rather than spend the $410,000. I guess money is no objective to this ridiculous idea. I believe I read in an e-mail, that was sent by NMA, that the engineer(s) that were tasked with drawing up the planned double configuration anchor system did not support the application in Newport Harbor. If this is a true statement; why are they not supportive of the application? My mooring is A-53 and is a forty foot double ended mooring. The boats immediately to my port and starboard are fifty or fifty-five feet in length, which means that the moorings have been permitted extensions. In the title statement from City Harbormaster, Mr. Paul Blank, he says one of the reasons for this ordinance is to accommodate "Mooring Size Exchange Requests". I do not want to be relocated to another mooring in the "A" field just because my mooring could be extended and aligned with the other adjacent moorings and given to a longer vessel. I found this specific location and transferred my mooring over twenty-five years ago to have access to Balboa Yacht Club, the shore boat service and easy access to harbor entrance. I have been a good permittee and have made over three hundred payments to the City of Newport for the permit. Is this also a way to generate more revenue with larger moorings in the fields? Last and probably most significant is a report in a NMA e-mail indicating according a marine engineer from Scripts that the current in Newport Harbor is 32 times stronger than the double anchor system employed in the American Harbor in San Diego. There is no comparison between the water and wind conditions in San Diego and what we experience here in Newport Beach. I ask the Newport Beach City Council to NOT approve this measure and to govern with Common Sense. This not a good decision for the boat community in Newport Harbor! Mr. Terry Trombatore A-53 (949)463-7333 Main Office Phone: 310 - 798-2400 Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP 3D10 79Dial:00 Ext. 3 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 www.cbcearthlaw.com May 23, 2023 VIA E-MAIL(CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov) City of Newport Beach City Council c/o Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Received After Agenda Printed May 23, 2023 Agenda Item No. 15 Douglas P. Carstens Email Address: dpc(cr�cbcearthlaw. com Re: Tuesday May 23, 2023, Item 15; Objection to Harbor Code Amendments to Mooring Procedures and Pilot Program that Require Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Review Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association - a Non Profit Corporation we object to approval of the mooring pilot program and associated Municipal Code changes without first conducting required environmental review and obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. On behalf of the Newport Mooring Association, we wrote to your Harbor Commission on November 8, 2022 to inform you that a Coastal Development Permit application is required in order for the City of Newport Beach ("City") to proceed with its proposal to amend the City of Newport Beach Harbor Code (Municipal Code, Title 17, sections 17.25.020 and 17.60.040) in order to modify mooring procedures. A copy of that letter was attached to our follow up letter of March 7, 2023. In our follow up letter of March 7, 2023, we also informed your Harbor Commission that review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required prior to approval of the ordinance changes or pilot test program. We write to underscore these points, which have still not been addressed sufficiently. The City's proposal to conduct a pilot test involving the relocation of existing mooring tackle and/or construction of new moorings constitutes development under the Coastal Act, for which a Coastal Development Permit and environmental review is required. Additionally, the proposed revisions City of Newport May 23, 2023 Page 2 include new restrictions regarding designated mooring row lengths, which are undefined and will require certain permittees to relocate, making it more difficult for those permittees to access moorings, and thereby impeding coastal access. Thus, the City may not proceed without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. We appreciate assurances in the Staff Report (page 5) that the City will apply for a Coastal Development Permit prior to implementing the test program. Furthermore, the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it will have environmental impacts related to public access to water, aesthetics, and construction of new moorings or relocation of existing mooring tackle in the submerged mooring field as detailed here and in our prior letters. The Staff Report claims the project would be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15302 for replacement or reconfiguration of existing facilities. However, this exemption is not applicable because the mooring program will intensify usage of the moorings, create visual and public safety impacts that do not exist with the current configuration, and potentially adversely cumulative impacts exist. With regard to intensity of usage, we note that the budget for the mooring program includes significant new funding that could be used for the installation of new moorings. The Staff Report states that reconfiguration "allows for the addition of several new moorings." (Staff Report, p. 5.) The purpose of the new allocations must be clarified if it is not to expand use of the mooring field by adding new moorings. Visual impacts from mooring reconfiguration can be significant, especially to those from vantage points around the harbor and in nearby harbor -adjacent homes. While mooring field reconfiguration may open up views from certain vantages, it will lead to blocking and obscuring views from other vantage points. Thus, overall, the negative aesthetic impacts of the reconfiguration must be analyzed prior to approval. We ask that you withhold your approval of this proposed project until proper environmental review is conducted, including the preparation of an initial study and circulation of a negative declaration or environmental impact report for public comment. City of Newport May 23, 2023 Page 3 The proposed revisions to the Harbor Code present significant changes that would alter access to water- both visual and physical access, would construct new moorings in the submerged mooring fields, and thus intensifying use. Accordingly, the proposed changes are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, not exempt from it, and the changes require a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. f Sincerely, Douglas P. Carstens From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 23rd Date: May 24, 2023 7:09:49 AM From: Elizabeth Rau <elizabeth_rau77@yahoo.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 3:48 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Mail@YourNMA.org Subject: City Council Meeting on Tuesday, May 23rd [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Newport Mooring Association, My name is Karen Rau and I am a mooring permittee owner. My father purchased the mooring permit for J-58 in 1968. 1 have been involved with other issues that have come up with the city of Newport Beach in the past. I absolutely do NOT agree with the new harbor code changes. Please, strongly consider my vote. Karen Rau Mooring #J-58 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Newport Harbor mooring redesign Date: May 24, 2023 7:12:57 AM From: Jennifer Krestan <jenniferkrestan@yahoo.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 4:24 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Newport Mooring Association <mail@ newportmooringassociation.org> Subject: Newport Harbor mooring redesign [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Council: As previously stated by many mooring permittees, the radical plan to redesign Newport Harbor mooring fields is a solution in search of a problem. If the concern is the lack of organization among the mooring due to mooring balls being displaced and boats being out of alignment, then put more weights on the mooring balls that support heavier vessels and they won't move of out alignment. And, as has been pointed out by several engineering professionals, America's Cup Harbor is in no way like Newport Harbor with regard to tides, wind velocities, traffic, etc. If this is such a great idea, why hasn't this configuration been copied anywhere else in San Diego Harbor? The plan to arrange moorings so that boats are bow to bow is dangerous. Making the fairways larger and easier to navigate will encourage Duffys and other small vessels to motor through, and, as happened to our mooring last week, get caught on the float line. In our case, this resulted in someone (probably the rental company) coming to the aid of the Duffy and cutting our mooring lines. Nice surprise when we tried to moor up. Fortunately for us, we were able to find temporary dock space while our mooring lines were being replaced. Not everyone will be that lucky. What has the Harbor Commission proposed to do as far as providing temporary slips for boats that due to weather/tides or damage to their moorings, are unable to access their mooring? Thank you, Jennifer Krestan From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Opposition to Mooring Changes Date: May 24, 2023 7:13:09 AM From: Patrick Chandler <patrickchandler@hotmail.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 5:02 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Opposition to Mooring Changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am strongly opposed to The Harbor Commissions' proposal to take over the ownership and maintenance of the mooring tackle and the idiotic double- row mooring proposal. Mooring maintenance costs are high enough as it is. If the City of Newport Beach takes over the maintenance then there is a 99% chance that the costs will go up. The City would probably feel justified to add at least one full time employee to handle the moorings. Please leave the maintenance in the hands of the mooring permit holders, as it has been since the moorings were put in. Moorings have been in place around the world for thousands of years. There is one place in the world that put in the proposed double row mooring system- In San Diego 40 years ago. If it was such an overwhelming success, you would be seeing more of the double- row moorings. In an effort to gain revenue by squeezing in, and selling, more moorings. The City is jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the mariners having to use the moorings. 95% of the surveyed mooring holders are against the proposed double row moorings. The Harbor Commission is ignoring the public outcry in advancing this proposal to the City Council. I don't know if Helix type anchors are still being proposed but they are "overkill" for Newport Harbor. Helix anchors are superior in 160+ mph hurricanes. Newport Harbor has never had winds over 110 mph. Chuck South, of South Mooring Company told me that to service Helix anchors requires two divers at $350 per hour, plus insurance. Traditional anchors are serviced with a crane. One study stated that Helix anchors can be pulled straight up by a trawler type vessel if there is not enough scope on the mooring. With the tightly packed mooring proposal there would not be enough scope and with a tsunami type surge the moorings would be lifted straight up and out of the sand. Why waste the proposed $410,000 initial cost? Thank you, Patrick Chandler From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed changes to mooring fields, regulations, comments for meeting of 5/23/23 Date: May 24, 2023 7:06:18 AM From: Pengalo <pengalo@aol.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 1:39 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Mail@YourNewportMooringAssocation.org Subject: Proposed changes to mooring fields, regulations, comments for meeting of 5/23/23 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of our City Council - I am a third generation Balboa Islander & longtime mooring permittee. I am concerned that the proposed changes are elevating an interest in the aesthetics of bayfront property owners viewscapes over the functionality of the current fields. I would welcome any data showing that there is a current mooring -field problem in search of this solution that justifies the expense and risks the proposed field reconfiguration will bring with it. Regarding the mooring fields reconfiguration, I share the concerns of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA) and ask that NO changes be made at this time, other than to conduct a limited pilot test using the city owned moorings as proposed by NMA. Pilot configuration design and test should be presented to the public for a comment period and reviewed at a public hearing prior to implementation. Please do not adopt & implement the proposed changes in the harbor code - let's deal with the testing of the proposed changes to the mooring fields first. Thank you for your consideration! Peter Leinau 324 Amethyst From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: PROPOSED HELICAL ANCHORS / LIQUEFACTION Date: May 24, 2023 7:02:31 AM From: R Jacks <rrjacks@gmail.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 1:57 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: mail@yournma.org; mail@yournewportmooringassociation.org Subject: PROPOSED HELICAL ANCHORS / LIQUEFACTION [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the City Council of Newport Beach, LIQUEFACTION AND HELICAL ANCHORS We are writing to express our concern regarding the proposal to replace the conventional boat moorings throughout the harbor with a double -boat helical anchoring system. Helical anchors could be prone to pulling loose as a result of liquefaction during an earthquake. We strongly discourage the approval of this proposal due to the potential liability and dangers associated with the use of placing helical anchors into the sandy/muddy soil under Newport Harbor. Several geologic studies show that the soil underlying the bay is subject to liquefaction in an earthquake. When a quake occurs, the helical anchors could be rendered useless. Liquefaction occurs when soil loses strength due to sudden ground movement. Water will percolate upward causing the soil to behave like a liquid. Compounding this effect is the already existing downward pressure of water on the soil from the bay. This means that the helical anchors could potentially be unstable and prone to movement or failure. While liquefaction is a concern on land above the bay, the soil below the bay is doubly volnerable to the two processes of liquefaction: 1. Water percolating upward during an earthquake, and, 2. The downward gravitational pressure of sea water within the bay. Furthermore, additional tidal and wind forces add to the danger of the helical anchors pulling loose from water -softened soil. Newport Harbor is subject to strong tidal flow and wind conditions, which can place significant stress on a helical anchoring system. If the helical anchors were to pull loose, boats could become unmoored and pose a threat to other boats, structures, and people in the harbor. Should that happen, the City of Newport Beach would be subject to massive liability lawsuits. In summary, the proposed helical anchoring system presents significant risks and potential dangers that should not be overlooked. We strongly discourage the approval of this helical anchor proposal and urge the city council to vote against it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Samuel Drazich, Mooring B-44 Richard Jacks, Mooring B-43 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed Mooring and Harbor Regulation changes Date: May 24, 2023 7:13:51 AM -----Original Message ----- From: Randall Newcomb <newcomb.randall@gmail.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 7:01 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed Mooring and Harbor Regulation changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council members, The largest concern amongst all the mooring permittees revolves around the inability of the up current/upwind mooring sites ability to safely capture the ball and helm the craft at the same time. A significant portion of boats on moorings are singlehanded. As a disabled veteran, I already find that in the time it takes me to cast off one end of my boat then move to the other end to finish casting off the lines, the boat has already swung away 30 to 40 degrees towards the neighboring boat. This new field arrangement is going to cause damage to boats, which is going to lead to lawsuits. I agree that a solution is needed and the mooring fields should be reorganized, but the safety of single rows and spacing should remain. Appreciate your time, Randall Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: May 24, 2023 7:06 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed changes to mooring fields, regulations, comments for meeting of 5/23/23 From: Pengalo <pengalo@aol.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 1:39 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Mail@YourNewportMooringAssocation.org Subject: Proposed changes to mooring fields, regulations, comments for meeting of 5/23/23 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members of our City Council- am a third generation Balboa Islander & longtime mooring permittee. am concerned that the proposed changes are elevating an interest in the aesthetics of bayfront property owners viewscapes over the functionality of the current fields. I would welcome any data showing that there is a current mooring -field problem in search of this solution that justifies the expense and risks the proposed field reconfiguration will bring with it. Regarding the mooring fields reconfiguration, I share the concerns of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA) and ask that NO changes be made at this time, other than to conduct a limited pilot test using the city owned moorings as proposed by NMA. Pilot configuration design and test should be presented to the public for a comment period and reviewed at a public hearing prior to implementation. Please do not adopt & implement the proposed changes in the harbor code - let's deal with the testing of the proposed changes to the mooring fields first. Thank you for your consideration! Peter Leinau 324 Amethyst 1 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Opposition to Mooring Changes From: Patrick Chandler <patrickchandler@hotmail.com> Sent: May 23, 2023 5:02 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Opposition to Mooring Changes Dear City Council Members, I am strongly opposed to The Harbor Commissions' proposal to take over the ownership and maintenance of the mooring tackle and the idiotic double- row mooring proposal. Mooring maintenance costs are high enough as it is. If the City of Newport Beach takes over the maintenance then there is a 99% chance that the costs will go up. The City would probably feel justified to add at least one full time employee to handle the moorings. Please leave the maintenance in the hands of the mooring permit holders, as it has been since the moorings were put in. Moorings have been in place around the world for thousands of years. There is one place in the world that put in the proposed double row mooring system- In San Diego 40 years ago. If it was such an overwhelming success, you would be seeing more of the double- row moorings. In an effort to gain revenue by squeezing in, and selling, more moorings. The City is jeopardizing the safety and well-being of the mariners having to use the moorings. 95% of the surveyed mooring holders are against the proposed double row moorings. The Harbor Commission is ignoring the public outcry in advancing this proposal to the City Council. I don't know if Helix type anchors are still being proposed but they are "overkill" for Newport Harbor. Helix anchors are superior in 160+ mph hurricanes. Newport Harbor has never had winds over 110 mph. Chuck South, of South Mooring Company told me that to service Helix anchors requires two divers at $350 per hour, plus insurance. Traditional anchors are serviced with a crane. One study stated that Helix anchors can be pulled straight up by a trawler type vessel if there is not enough scope on the mooring. With the tightly packed mooring proposal there would not be enough scope and with a tsunami type surge the moorings would be lifted straight up and out of the sand. Why waste the proposed $410,000 initial cost? Thank you, Patrick Chandler i