Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Limitations on Water - Propelled Vessels in Newport Harbor - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed April 28, 2015 Item No. 16 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:36 AM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Water Propelled Vessels From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:36:21 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Water Propelled Vessels For the record. -----Original Message ----- From: Devon Kelly fmailtoAkelly576ppacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:59 PM To: Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith; Muldoon, Kevin; Dixon, Diane; Selich, Edward Cc: Kiff, Dave; Miller, Chris Subject: Water Propelled Vessels Dear Newport Beach City Council, I understand that you will be voting on the Water Propelled Vessels at the next City Council meeting. 1 went to all the Harbor Commission Ad Hoc meetings to make sure that they heard my concerns surrounding these machines. I strongly urge you to not allow these vessels to be allowed in the bay. They present many problems from noise to safety issues. They fly too close to power as well as sail boats. I know the day is coming when they will slam into one of the young kids sailing in the youth programs. They do not adhere to the same rules that are expected of other boaters. We already are incredibly congested in this bay with all the charter boats, pontoon boats and mooring fields. There is simply not enough space nor is this the right venue for this type of business. I am unable to attend the April 28th City Council Meeting, and I strongly urge you to listen to the Harbor Commission's recommendations to not allow these vessels in the Newport Harbor Bay. Thank you for your time, Devon Kelly Newport Beach From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:24 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Comment re. Council Session Item re Jet Pak business Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential For the record. From: Denys Oberman[mailto:dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:23 AM To: Dianebdixon; Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave Cc: Brown, Leilani; ppallette@aol.com; breasy@aol.com; Alison Ryffel; 'Linda Klein'; kbranman@gmail.com; Denys H Oberman; Mike and Dorothy Kraus; iwatt4@aol.com Subject: Comment re. Council Session Item re Jet pak business Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD RE. APRIL 28,2015 COUNCIL SESSION. Mayor & Council Members: I will be travelling and unable to attend tomorrow's City Council session. 1 would like to comment on the proposed recommendation that One Jet pak business only be authorized to operate in Newport's bay. Testimony has already been entered in connection with the Safety and Noise issues associated with this type of operation. The City has numerous plans and projects on the table and construction in process which will dramatically intensify the use of the Bay and ocean, and along with it, the number of marine vehicles and recreational uses. This will exponentially increase both the Safety Risk and Nuisances associated with this type of an operation. These increases will create additional risk to the City, operators of recreational and marine businesses, and to the many members of the public using the bay and ocean for various other already numerous types of recreation ---boating, paddling, kayaking,fishing, to name a few. Our City is perpetually "challenged" by enforcement, and we as a community already struggle with much -n eeded change in policy, practice and culture. Furthermore, I wonder why the City has not learned its lesson about such murky discretionary decisions. There are no obligations for our City to allow this type of business and we are better off without it. There can be no doubt about the RIGHT DECISION ------ JUST SAY "NO". Thank you, Denys Oberman Resident Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO ef CBERMA Strategy vad Firmne101 Advisers OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho(c).obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. Received After Agenda Printed April 28, 2015 Item No. 16 From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:26 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Jet Lev and otherjet operations in Newport Harbor Attachments: Jet Lev letter.docx For the record. -----Original Message ---- From: Pamela Whitesides [mailto:otlaw0sbcelobal.net] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:43 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Jet Lev and other jet operations in Newport Harbor Attached please find my letter in opposition to continuing to permit Jet Lev and otherjet operations inside Newport Harbor, rather than permitting them outside the harbor. Thank you. April 25, 2015 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I. Introduction and Background. I own properties at the west end of Lido Isle where I live and where four other families live facing the bay. I, along with other affected residents, attended every meeting of the Harbor Commission's ad hoc Committee, which was appointed to study whether water I et operations like Jet Lev are appropriate and safe in Newport Harbor. While initially the Committee members seemed inclined toward continuing to allow Jet Lev and other such businesses to continue to operate in Newport Harbor, the more the Committee studied the safety issues, the geographic configuration of the harbor, and the universally negative impact on the other users of and residents around the harbor, the Committee's recommendation was that such activity was unsafe inside Newport Harbor and incompatible with residents and other users of the harbor and its beaches. Moreover, at least one other jet operator attended who was successfully operating outside the harbor, so Jet Lev could continue its business by simply taking its customers outside. After weeks of study, the Committee's findings and conclusions were presented to the full Harbor Commission, which voted to recommend to the Council that it no longer permit those activities in the harbor. Apparently the charismatic owner of the current Jet Lev operation successfully lobbied some or all members of the City Council after he failed to convince the Harbor Commission that such businesses were safe and appropriate in the harbor. The Council, with virtually no discussion of the issues raised in the weeks of study and investigation by the Harbor Commission, ignored its recommendation, as well as the public input from the affected residents and almost universal opposition by the other harbor users. Instead, the Council directed City Staff to "figure out a way to get to yes" to allow such businesses to continue to operate in the harbor. As discussed below, in order to get to "yes," the City Staff will need to ignore the safety of other harbor users, the residents' right to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their homes around the bay, the Committee's findings and the Harbor Commission's recommendation, the City's own Municipal Code concerning marine activities permits, and potentially the Coast Guard requirements for operators of six-pack charters. I. The Municipal Code Governs Permissible Commercial Activities in the Harbor. The Harbor Code, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, governs most aspects of activities and operations in Newport Harbor. Chapter 17.10 of the Harbor Code contains the regulations for commercial activities in the Harbor, and contains specific requirements for granting permits for such activities. The "Findings and Purpose" section of Chapter 17.10 contain the rationales for regulating commercial operations through the permit process and some are particularly persuasive against granting permits to businesses such as Jet Lev. A. An Activity's Noise Is Not To Interfere with Peaceful Enjoyment By Residents and Visitors in Public Areas: "This commercial activity has sometimes created a level of noise which has interfered with the right of residents, persons who own property and visitors on or near Newport Harbor to the peaceful enjoyment of their property and public areas." (Section 17.00.005 (F)) B. An Activity Is Not To Be A Hazard to Safety of Other Harbor Users: "Commercial activity, especially the mix of large craft with limited maneuverability and restricted uplands access, has the potential to interfere with the safe navigation of boats and vessels operating on the waters of Newport Harbor." (Section 17.00.005 (G)) C. An Activity Must Be Within the Capacity and Constraints of the Harbor; Not Cause Excessive Noise or Risk Safety: "The requirements of the chapter are necessary to minimize the traffic congestion, parking shortages, excessive noise, and the discharge of waste that could result from unregulated commercial activity and to ensure safe operation within the capacity and constraints of Newport Harbor." (Section 17.00.005 (H)) D. The Intent of the Permit Process Is To Insure Activities Do Not Adversely Affect the Health, Safety and Welfare of Other Users and Residents: "In adopting this chapter, The City Council intends that the health, safety and welfare of those who use, enjoy and own property near Newport Harbor are not adversely affected by commercial activities conducted on those waters and that suitability and capability of the Newport Harbor infrastructure to accommodate future permit -dependent operations are adequately considered in permit application processes." (Section 17.00.005 (J)) IL Necessary Findings Cannot Be Made to Approve Permits for Jet Operations in Newport Harbor. Guided by the findings and purpose of the permit process above, the Code contains specific circumstances where a commercial activity should not be permitted. (Section 17.10.050) A. An activity should not be permitted if "the proposed commercial activity is likely, when viewed in conjunction with other anticipated charters and marine operations, to create a hazard to safe navigation, or otherwise interfere with the rights of others to use the waters of Newport Harbor." Subsection D In recent years the harbor has become a growing destination for water users of all kinds. The west end of Lido has turned into an area crowded with boats, SUPS, kayaks, water cycles, swimmers, sailing classes and races, and children at summer camp. Compare these users to the impact of Jet Lev and other thrill riding operations. The objective of their customers is to fly as high and fast as possible, up to the edge of control and beyond, all in a huge circle 50-100 feet wide in the middle of all the other traffic. The harbor is simply not big enough to accommodate a huge circle of danger plus everyone else who wants to peacefully enjoy their own personal watercraft. The danger became a reality when one out -of -control Jet Lev customer apparently crashed into a boat and was not saved by the "kill switch" the company touts. If the flyer had instead hit a child or another adult, it could have resulted in injury or death to someone who did not assume the risk of being hit at high speed by a flying body. Operators of water activities for groups of children have repeatedly warned the City's representatives of just such concerns for the foreseeable danger to their children from jet operations in the harbor. As regards to safety, the City also needs to analyze, if it hasn't already, whether permitting jet operations will expose it to liability for approving a known hazardous activity in the harbor. See Cal. Gov. Code 831.7. While the City probably can shield itself from liability to customers of jet operators, it may have a duty to somehow warn other harbor users that they might be hit by someone flying into them when they swim, or when they take their kayak, SUP, or other water device into the bay. B. An activity should not be permitted if "the proposed commercial activity is likely to create noise which would adversely affect use or eniovment of the waters of Newport Harbor by members of the public, or interfere with the riEhts of those who own property near the waters of Newport Harbor to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of that propertv." Subsection A The protections from disruptive commercial activities in the harbor codified in the Harbor Code apply to persons who own property next to the activity, not to residents who are not impacted by the activity. The Code does not provide for a popularity contest between those residents detrimentally affected by jet operations and other residents or visitors, or even City representatives who think these thrill rides are cool, fun, or even if they attract others to the area. Those rationales do not constitute "exceptions" to what the Code requires: a permit should be denied if it creates noise that interferes with the rights of property owners to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property. Every resident who attended the ad hoc Committee, Harbor Commission, and City Council meetings, emphasized how much the noise impacted their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property facing the Jet Lev operation. The noise is almost the same as the noise from a jet ski running continuously in front of your home. Some residents, like me, could not sit on their patios or keep their windows open because of the droning noise that went on for hours. Add to that noise the incessant wake created by the Jet Lev, continuously splashing and rocking our boats against the docks in this "wake free" harbor. Even with the windows closed the noise inside is like a vacuum running for hours in the next room. Other residents who work at home complained that the incessant noise did not just disturb them but that it began to cause them emotional stress that was affecting their work. Unfortunately, some Council Members and Harbor Commissioners seemed to downplay the effect of the noise on the residents, based on their short-term observation of the activity. Experiencing the noise for an hour or so, however, is different than experiencing the continuous noise inside and outside residents' homes for hours on end or all day. It is an assault on the residents, the beach visitors, and anyone in the public hoping for a quiet time to contemplate the bay. C. An activity should not be permitted if "the vessel or craft to be used by the applicant does not satisfy the applicable standards of the United States Coast Guard.. .." Subsection C The representative of the Coast Guard indicated at the City Council meeting that the Coast Guard was studying how to regulate operations like Jet Lev and he suggested the operation might require a six-pack license. Before it continues to allow Jet Lev or other operators to continue in the bay, the City should wait until the Coast Guard has vetted the safety of these businesses and arrived at the appropriate licensing scheme. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my (unfortunately) lengthy remarks. Thank you too for your time and service to the community. Sincerely, Pam Whitesides Received After Agenda Printed April 28, 2015 Item No. 16 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:56 PM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Jetpacks in the harbor From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:55:31 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: RN: Jetpacks in the harbor For the record. From: Laurie Smith [mailto:llschilling (&me.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 1:54 PM To: Dixon, Diane Cc: Dept - City Council Subject: Jetpacks in the harbor Dear Diane: I am concerned about the use of jetpacks in our harbor. I live on Lido Isle and have lived close to and recreated in Newport Bay and Alamitos Bay in Long Beach for over 50 years. I have never written a letter to a city council but feel passionate about the use of j etpacks after a Duffy boat ride with friends approximately a month ago. It was Newport's spring break "seemed like summer" tourist season. As we approached the entrance to the Rine Canal, a Jet Pack operator on a sea doo was with a client who was treading water with the pack strapped to her body. He was yelling instructions at her that neither she nor we could hear over the loud drone of the pack. She looked afraid. We carefully navigated around them and the 5 standup paddle boarders and two other Duffy boats that were ahead of us in the canal. It felt crowded, very crowded. A picture came to mind of a neighborhood street cul de sac filled with cars skateboarders, and kids on bikes. Upon returning to the main channel, we saw that the jetpack client had returned to the dock and a new client was circling in the air perilously close to the dock. Again, the motor seemed to drown -out the operator's commands. I had observed the jetpack operating in the bay's turning basin adjacent to the Lido Bridge and experienced its droning motor along with the interrupted flow of traffic from the curious pedestrians and drivers stopping to watch. It didn't seem like the right fit for our small bay, particularly now with the addition of weekend armies of stand up paddle boarders. But, I could deal with it. I hadn't had a fender bender from the impact on traffic nor hit a dazed, gawking teen bolting across the bridge to take a look. If the City really needed this moneymaker, I could deal with it every summer. But the safety risks on many levels that I experienced in the Rine Canal? This I cannot ignore. As a mother, former nurse and teacher, safety has always been first. Therefore, I cannot look away from the safety risks to people (without even mentioning property) that I observed with the use of jet packs in our beloved bay. Please take my thoughts into account when voting on Jetpack America's contract renewal and specific contract terms for use in and around our harbor. Laurie Smith 332 Piazza Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 500-5963 "Received After Agenda Printed" Agenda Item No. 16 McDonald, Cristal April 28, 2015 Subject: FW: Water Propelled Vessels Begin forwarded message: From: kfarah <karah9 ,gmail.com> Date: April 28, 2015 at 12:11:51 PM PDT To: <DDixonAnewportbeachca.gov>, <fPetrosAnewportbeachca.gov>, <DDuffieldAnewnortbeachca.gov>, <KMuldoonAnewnortbeachca.gov>, <EdSelichAroadrunner.com>, <SPeotterAnewnortbeachca.gov>, <currykApfm.com> Subject: Water Propelled Vessels TO: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Diane B. Dixon [District 1 Mayor Pro Tem] Tony Petros [District 2] Duffy Duffield [District 3] Kevin Muldoon [District 4] Edward D. Selich [District 5 Mayor] Scott Peotter [District 6] Keith D. Curry [District 7] FROM: Residents of West Bay Ave [Located on bay side between 18th & 19th St] RE: Strongly ASK they be relocated away from 17th -20th St. "Quality of Life" Significantly Impacted Daily High -Intensity Noise: Very Invasive & Stressful We are located on the blocks between 18th & 19th St on the bay side and are significantly affected by the Jet Pack operations. We strongly ASK they be relocated away from 17th -20th St. . Most of us have lived here for more than 20 years. We ask you to protect us from this invasive activity, and provide us some relief, just as you would expect if this was parked in front of your own homes. The rest of this email will be brief (to respect everyone's busy schedule) 1. NOISE LEVEL IS VERY INVASIVE & STRESSFUL: - We have been subjected to it for several years. - High Stress from High -Intensity & Non -Stop Noise - Noise NOT transitory like passing plane or party boat. - Any operation between 17th & 20th streets has big impact. 2. QUALITY of LIFE has been greatly impacted. High stress levels among residents after years of exposure. Can't relax or get work done in our own homes 3. Expressed our concerns at MANY Harbor Commission meetings. - Hope all time/energy spent is not ignored by City Council. REMARKS/RESPONSES to COMMENTS from Last Meeting: - ADOPT MISSION BAY Model: - Mission Bay operations are MUCH further away from residents. - "Waterways belong to the people & not just the residents" - Agree totally, and remind you that Residents are people too. - No activity should be allowed if it is disruptive to "people's" lives. - Similar to allowing an industrial operation in front of your homes - Streets in front of your homes belong to everyone, yet, - No "commercial" & "permanent" activities are allowed if disruptive - Authorities are asked to provide relief from disruption, just like - We are asking you to help us get relief, and - Restore our Quality of Life. The net effect of allowing this activity at such close proximity to residences is no different from "rezoning" our neighborhoods to "industrial" from "residential". This results in a reduced living standard as well as a wholesale reduction in all affected property values. We ask that you relocate them to an area that doesn't have such a dramatic effect on neighboring residents. Again, we ask you to protect us from this invasive activity, and provide us some relief, just as you would expect if this was parked in front of your homes. Thank you for your time and consideration. George Farah P.S. This email was shared by the residents and all other interested parties.