The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00 - Non Agenda Items - Correspondence"Received After Agenda Printed" Non Agenda Item 03 -10 -15 Brown, Leilani From: Kiff, Dave In Reference to: Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:12 PM (02 -24 -15 SS4) To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Water Propelled Vessels Study Session For the record. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Randy Curry [mailto:rcurry@currylawyers.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:12 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Selich, Cc: Miller, Chris Subject: Re: Water Propelled Vessels Study Session Dear Council: Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith My prior comments did not address potential income to Newport Beach which could be generated by a continued commercial Jetpack operation. Because most of you call yourselves fiscal conservatives, I trust you intend to permit revenue generating businesses where the potential fiscal revenue which might be generated is not trumped by the risks and potential negative effects to the city and its residents. If statements regarding the current Jetpack operation are true, that operation provides an average of 8 -12 rides on a good summer operational day and an average of 1 -4 rides during operational days in the winter months. Each ride apparently averages approximately $150. Based on an estimate of 260 operational days per year, estimated annual gross revenue is $195,000. Please correct me if you understand differently, providing the basis for the numbers you understand to be correct. The City of Newport Beach should receive a modest annual business license tax payment. Additionally, the city should receive sales tax revenue on an estimated $195,000 in gross sales. Without taking into consideration any administrative fees and costs, and assuming the city receives the entire 8% of $195,000 in gross sales, the estimated sales tax revenue resulting from continued operation of a single Jetpack operator in Newport Beach totals only an estimated amount of $15,600. Some of you might speculate that Jetpack customers will spend money at other businesses in Newport Beach. I am aware of no study to support such speculation, or to determine any amount typically spent which would not have been spent but for a customer's Jetpack ride. One would have to speculate to say that other Newport Beach businesses would lose a dime because of banning current Jetpack operations or by limiting such operations to ocean areas outside of Newport Bay. If you are aware of studies to the contrary, please let me know and provide copies of such studies. You all have duties and obligations to your constituents. In making a fiscally conservative decision about condoning and permitting continued commercial Jetpack operations in Newport Bay, please provide the following information. What are your assessments of the potential income to be generated versus the potential risk of death, injury, and property damage, in addition to the noise pollution and disruption to the quiet enjoyment expected by your constituents in Newport Beach? I look forward to receipt of your responses. Alternatively, as I previously suggested, please immediately provide your assessments and responses to these questions and inquiries in the commentary section of the Daily Pilot. Thank you, Randy Curry Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Randy Curry <rcurry @currylawyers.com> wrote: > Dear Council: > Not hearing back from any of you, I can only assume that my comments were ignored and disregarded by each of you. This is not surprising, as it is apparent that the City Council members making comments at the recent study session wholly disregarded the presentation, report, and recommendation of the committee it established to conduct a months long study of the viability of continued commercial Jetpack operations in Newport Harbor. > While the committee and I were apparently ignored and disregarded, I received an email from a resident in support of continued Jetpack operations, stating that she received an email from the City Council thanking her for an email she sent supporting the City Council's comments regarding this matter. Please let me know whether you sent such an email, whether such an email was sent on your behalf, and, if so, what was contained in the email. I understand that emails to and from the City Council, including my emails to you, are public record. > Further, I received another email stating that Dean O'Malley was at City Hall immediately prior to the City Council study session to privately meet with City Council members for the purpose of lobbying support for his Jetpack operation. Many of you were elected based on promises of transparency in our local government. I would appreciate your responding, advising whether or not you met with Dean as indicated, and whether you believe such conduct, if true, should take place. > > Finally, I would like to understand why the City Council apparently wishes to find a way to allow continued Jetpack operations. Mr. Curry stated that this was his wish. Others of you agreed. Why? > What determinations have you made regarding safety, or lack thereof, and what is the basis for those determinations? > How is the Committee's report wrong, and what is the basis for your positions regarding each of the determinations made by the Committee in its presentation and report? > What is the risk of claims and lawsuits against Newport Beach for sanctioning continued operations? In the event of death, injury, or property damage resulting from such commercial operations, do you think that no claim or legal action is viable? If so, what is the basis for this determination? Can insurance protect against all potential claims? Do governmental tort immunities protect the City of Newport Beach? What is the basis of your determinations in this regard? > I would appreciate your individual responses to me. Alternatively, I request that each of you immediately address and respond to all of these issues and questions in the Commentary section of the Daily Pilot. > Thank you, > Randy Curry > 325 Via Lido Nord > Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 > 949 - 258 -4381 > Law Offices of Randy D. Curry > 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 > Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 > 949 - 258 -4381 > Sent from my iPhone >> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:45 PM, Randy Curry <rcurry @currylawyers.com> wrote: >> Dear Council: >> I hope my comments were raised at the study session earlier today. I would appreciate being apprised of further study sessions, recommendations, or hearings related to this matter. >> Thank you, >> Randy Curry >> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 5:36 PM, Randy Curry <rcurry @currylawyers.com> wrote: >>> 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 2/24115. 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 plaintiffs 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 »7 >>> Sent from my !Phone Received After Agenda Printed March 10, 2015 Rieff, Kim Non - Agenda Item From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:47 PM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Dog Park From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:47:12 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Dog Park For the record. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Mary Petropoulos [mailto:mpetropo @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 4:44 PM To: Finnigan, Tara Subject: Dog Park at Lower Sunset View Park. SUPPORT!!! As a property owner in Villa Balboa for 33 years, I totally support the addition of a Dog Park at Lower Sunset View Park. What an ideal location, as there are many dog owners living in Villa Balboa, Versailles and Newport Crest condominiums, ALL within walking distance of the park who would really welcome this. Therefore, not much need for lots of parking space. We appreciate the two new parks nearby and this would be an outstanding addition. Thank you Mary Petropoulos Resident Villa Balboa 1