Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS4 - Water Propelled Vessels - Correspondence"Received After Agenda Printed" Rieff, Kim Item No. SS4 2/24/15 From: Rieff, Kim ;.. Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:44 PM To: Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Water propelled vessels above the surface of the water 1. From: Don & Judy Cole [mailto:lagunahouseCabme.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:55 PM To: Kiff, Dave Cc: Miller, Chris Subject: Water propelled vessels above the surface of the water Mr. Kiff, We are extremely disappointed that the City Council dismissed Bill Kinney's presentation and the Harbor Commission's recommendation to the Council regarding water propelled vessels in our harbor. It appeared to us in the meeting that the Council had already made up their minds and hopped on the bandwagon to "get to yes" without thoroughly understanding or vetting the issues first, much to the detriment of other users of the harbor. We would like to reiterate some of the biggest concerns and questions that we feel were not adequately addressed by the Council, and hope that you and your team will mitigate the following as you craft the draft ordinance to regulate the activity. Perhaps you will even determine upon closer analysis that the Harbor Commission was correct in their analysis and recommendation. 1. The Municipal Code prohibits vessels powered or maneuvered by air above the surface of the water in the harbor. What is the justification for allowing water propulsion vessels above the surface of the water in the harbor? 2. The Jet Pack business does not fit the "Purpose" as defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code nor does it support the goals, objectives and policies of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan. Section 17.10.050 of the Municipal Code sets the guidelines for the issuance of permits in the Harbor. It states that the Harbor Resources Manager may issue the marine activities permit upon a determination that approval of the application will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of those who use, enjoy, or own property near Newport Harbor. The following activities that would not be approved under the current code guidelines need to be mitigated: "A. The proposed commercial activity is likely to create noise which would adversely affect use or enjoyment of the waters of Newport Harbor by members of the public, or interfere with the rights of those who own property near the waters of Newport Harbor to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of that property;" Any place that any water propelled vessel operates in the Harbor will be a noise nuisance. The Jet Pack stays in one place for the duration of a customer's time unlike the party boats or other loud vessels that cruise throughout the harbor. "C. The vessel or craft to be used by the applicant does not satisfy the applicable standards of the United States Coast Guard, or City, County, State or Federal requirements of law;" The Coast Guard made the following observation and recommendation: The Jet Pack "flyer" is not independently operating the jet pack unit. For safety reasons, the "monitoring vessel" operates the kill switch and controls the speed. In addition, the monitoring vessels also communicate with the "flyer" as to other directions. In other words, the person on the "monitoring vessel" is the captain in control of the Jet Pack vessel and should require a "six-pack" licensed captain. "D. 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;" Whether or not Jet Pack has been cited by the Harbor Patrol or not, their customers and operators regularly exceed the speed limit and create wakes. This impacts not only boats, docks and piers, but other users in the harbor. It is discriminatory and unsafe to allow Jet Pack to operate outside the speed limit and to violate the no wake zones when all other users are held to the law. Further, how does it happen that Jet Pack customers end up 2' away from a child kayaker, in the middle of the summer beer can races, or in the middle of channel traffic (just to name a few examples) when there are two monitoring jet skis and a staging vessel with kill switches and microphones? The issue is not just about the control they have over their customer, it is that they don't have control over other boats and users in the harbor. S*** happens and is more likely to happen in Newport Beach with it's narrower channel configuration around the adjacent residential and commercial areas and mooring fields, as opposed to the much larger open waters in Mission Bay. The Jet Pack group does not operate in 50' of space as testified to. The staging vessel hovers nearby and the chase vessels follow the customer as he or she generally veers in all directions. They are generally spread out over 100' or more. This impacts the flow of traffic in the channels, which is a completely different situation than in the open waters where they operate in Mission Bay. Other users in the harbor should have the right to navigate the channels in the harbor without having to deal with vessels in the channel that are not operating in the manner in which the channels are designated to be used. 3. It is too bad that the water propelled business couldn't be limited to the Dunes where there is no residential area and minimal vessel traffic. But other than that, there is no appropriate location in the harbor for one operator let alone multiple operators that will not negatively impact residents or other users of the harbor. Navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing, anchorage and mooring areas all have specific designations- most of which are designated pursuant to law and approved by the Federal Government. Channels in Newport Harbor are designated for vessel navigation- going from point A to point B- not for hanging out and impeding traffic. Anchorages are designated for the temporary anchorage of vessels using their own anchoring tackle, not for a noisy commercial activity that creates wakes. Turning basins are areas- connected to a channel - which are large enough to allow vessels to maneuver, turn around or permit their course or direction to be altered therein- not to be blocked. We have been boat owners and operators in the harbor since college in the 70's and have owned property on the waterfront since 1997. While the harbor has seen changes, and while there is much more recreational traffic on the water today, the great character of the harbor has remained the same. Newport Beach isn't Las Vegas, Miami or Waikiki, and hopefully never will be. The water propelled vessels above the surface of the water are not compatible with the other vessels and users in our harbor. That being said, if they have to be here, then we hope that there will be appropriate regulations and safeguards to control the type and quantity of these businesses and personal watercraft so they do not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of those who use, enjoy, or own property near Newport Harbor. Otherwise the character of our harbor will be changed forever. And if the water propelled vessel companies feel they can't operate within the restrictions and boundaries that are necessary, then they should move to a more suitable location. Sincerely, Don & Judy Cole Received After Agenda Printed February 24, 2015 Item No. SS4 From: Kiff. Dave To: City Clerk"s Office Subject: FW: Water propelled vessels above the surface of the water Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:05:55 AM For the record. From: Don & Judy Cole [mailto:lagunahouse@me.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:06 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Water propelled vessels above the surface of the water Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The media has chosen to focus on the popularity of jetpacks in the harbor and the draw to the area, complaints from boat owners "that water from the jetpacks sprays their vessels and damages the paint" or complaints from homeowners that "the activity is too noisy for the sleepy harbor". First, the popularity and draw is greatly exaggerated. Second, while the complaints are valid, the bigger picture is that there are multiple larger issues & problems with not just the Jet Pack business, but any water propelled vessels above the water in the harbor. While Newport Harbor currently has only one permitted commercial business operating a water propulsion vessel above the water business, City staff has received numerous complaints from residents and boaters living and recreating around the harbor regarding noise, exhaust, wake and speed and safety violations relative to this activity. The existing business itself is a threat to public peace, health and safety. The addition of new water propulsion vessel businesses as well as the fairly recent introduction of independent sales of Jet Packs, Jet Boards and other water propelled above the surface craft within Newport Harbor would be unmanageable and a recipe for disaster. The operations are out of character with the design and residential character of Newport Harbor and they are not compatible with existing or future uses in the harbor. Jet Pack claims that they are operating safely in other areas (ie: the westside of Mission Bay and Las Vegas), but the fact is that those other areas are not comparable at all to Newport Harbor. Newport Harbor is surrounded by dense residential areas with narrower channels and smaller turning basins. Further, these areas do not have the density of harbor traffic that we have here. Jet Pack may have a good safety program in place for their patrons and operators, but water propulsion vessel operations pose a safety hazard to other users of the harbor. There is a distinct lack of available appropriate space to operate these type of vessels safely in the harbor. Given the unique operational characteristics of water propulsion vessels (a separate vessel for power, a separate vessel for holding the user as well as a third vessel for staging, staff and loading purposes, and two jet skis for monitoring), they impact access to navigational channels and public rights-of-way and endanger themselves and other persons using Newport Harbor- not to mention marine life. Restricting operations to the main channel areas has not mitigated the issues. One only has to go online to view the videos to see how incompatible the operation is in a harbor that is normally full of small and large power & sailboats, electric boats, paddle boats, SUP's, kayaks and more. We have personally witnessed the Jet Pack operators fly directly into a regatta with the monitoring vessels unable to stop them or unaware. We have seen them head into sailing classes and boy scout kayak groups. We have seen the Jet Pack and entourage impede the course of several party boats and pleasure boats on the harbor. We have seen the monitoring vessels exceeding the speed limit on an ongoing basis. We have seen the monitoring vessels and the Jet Pack user creating large wakes that knock private and public piers and docks into their supports and moored vessels. Just this past holiday weekend we watched as the Jet Pack entourage cut through SUPers and other heavy traffic on the bay causing multiple crafts to veer off and/or stop at the last minute and creating a glut at the entrance to the Rhine Channel. This could have dangerous consequences. Section 17.20.060 of the Municipal Code- Air Propulsion Vessels Prohibited- states that no person shall operate any vessel on the waters of Newport Harbor if the vessel is powered or maneuvered by means of mechanical air propulsion above the surface of the water. While Jet Pack is different because it is propelled by water- not air- it is still being powered by means of propulsion above the surface of the water. We believe a ban on water propelled vessels above the surface of the water should be added. We enjoy watching (not listening to) the " flyers" on occasion as much as any one, and we are pro-business. However, the Jet Lev business and other similar businesses have the option to operate in more appropriate locations. The Harbor Commission has done a thorough job in vetting all the issues surrounding the operation of vessels propelled by water above the surface of Newport Harbor. To ensure the health, safety and welfare of all residents and visitors alike, we urge you to to accept their recommendation and establish a permanent prohibition on these businesses and personal craft inside the harbor. Thank you for your consideration, Don & Judy Cole 3326 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)338-4521 Received After Agenda Printed February 24, 2015 Miller, Chris Item No. SS4 From: Randy Curry <rcurry@currylawyers.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:37 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith Cc: Miller, Chris Subject: Water Propelled Vessels Study Session Dear Council: I am a resident of Lido Isle and am an attorney in Newport Beach. I am contacting you regarding concerns with the Jetpack America operation and future permits for similar inherently dangerous operations. I have been communicating with Chris Miller, the Newport Beach Harbor Manager, and I am aware of the upcoming study session scheduled for 2/24/15. Though I will not be able to attend, I would appreciate it if my concerns set forth herein are taken into consideration. I have first hand knowledge that the Jetpack America operation has been a hazard to boaters and allows dangerous maneuvers by Jetpack America participants and staff. I have seen it for myself, and when contacting the Harbor Patrol to report unsafe conduct, was advised to contact the City. I have first hand knowledge of Jetpack America's past illegal use of public beaches to pick up and drop off passengers and to post signs to advertise its business. I propose that the City of Newport Beach not permit commercial Jetpack operations. I further propose that private operators not be allowed in Newport Bay. They are unreasonably and inherently dangerous to the both the operators and to other boaters. The Orange County Register, on 6/25/14, reported the $100,000 settlement of a lawsuit against Jetpack America by a customer hurt in Newport Bay. The City of Newport Beach was not a party to that lawsuit. As a plaintiff's attorney, I can assure you that the City risks governmental tort claims and litigation by condoning and permitting continued operations of this kind. I recently asked Chris Miller if the City had reviewed and considered obtaining a legal opinion regarding the liability waiver utilized by Jetpack America. I understand that a copy of the liability waiver has not been obtained or considered. Is it binding? Does it protect the City from wrongful death claims, personal injury claims, or property damage claims should claims be made against the City for allowing and issuing a business permit to a commercial business conducting an inherently dangerous operation in Newport Bay? Can the City rely on governmental tort immunities for protection against such claims and lawsuits? Bay front residents have voiced numerous complaints regarding the noise pollution created by the Jetpack operation. At a City meeting I attended, a solution proposed was to constantly move the operation around the Newport Bay, thus bothering everybody at times, but nobody all of the time. think such a "solution" will lead to constant irritation and complaints to the City. Nobody wants the operation in front of his or her house. I do not know if consideration has been given to the effect such operations have on bird and sea life. I would imagine that such effects should be considered by the Council if there is any thought of allowing such operations in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Randy Curry Law Offices of Randy D. Curry 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 949-258-4381 Sent from my Whone Received After Agenda Printed February 24, 2015 Brown, Leilani Item No. SS4 From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:19 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Jet Pack operations For the record. -----Original Message ----- From: elisabeth koeberle rmailto:ekoeberlea_me.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 7:18 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Jet Pack operations Members of the NB City Council, I was quite dismayed to learn that the City Council has dismissed the recommendation of the Harbor Commission to limit the Jet Pack operators to the open ocean. As a Cannery Village resident and Newport Harbor paddle boarder I urge you to reconsider both from a safety and noise standpoint. Has the City Council ever actually witnessed the Jet Pack operation in real time? It is a dangerous and intrusive activity that disrupts the enjoyment of the harbor for many at the benefit of very few. Hopefully you will reconsider, Elisabeth Koeberle